MR VINAY KUMAR S vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
1
R
Reserved on : 20.02.2026
Pronounced on : 04.06.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.18828 OF 2025 (GM - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.31907 OF 2025 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.18828 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. VINAY KUMAR S.,
S/O SIDDAIAH B.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.18, 4 MAIN ROAD
TH
10 CROSS, BEHIND KEB OFFICE
ALANAHALLI, MYSURU – 570 028.
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY
CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI KARIAPPA N. A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
signed by
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
2
BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANAGRAHARA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3 . MR. LINGARAJU L.,
S/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.1067, 16 CROSS
CHANDRA LAYOUT, I STAGE
BENGALURU – 560 070.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI MANU B. P., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 164/2025 OF CHANDRA
LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY AS PER ANNEXURE-A
FIR AND ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENCES UNDER
SECTIONS 80, 85, 352 AND 3(5) OF BNS, WHICH IS ON THE FILE
TH
OF 46 ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE CITY AS PER ANNX-B, FURTHER PROCEEDING AS AN
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERN.
3
IN WRIT PETITION No.31907 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1 . SIDDAIAH B.,
S/O LATE BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.18, 4 MAIN
TH
10 CROSS, ALANAHALLI BADAVANE
MYSURU – 570 028.
2 . PREMA
W/O SIDDAIAH B.,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.18, 4 MAIN
TH
10 CROSS, ALANAHALLI BADAVANE
MYSURU – 570 028.
3 . SANJAY KUMAR S.,
S/O SIDDAIAH B.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.18, 4 MAIN
TH
10 CROSS, ALANAHALLI BADAVANE
MYSURU – 570 028.
4 . NANJUNDAIAH R.,
LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
TH TH
R/AT 411, 4 MAIN, 4 CROSS
NEAR SHANKARNAG BUS
KAMALANAGAR, MYSURU CITY – 560 079.
5 . ARUN KUMAR N.,
S/O NANJUNDAIAH R.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
TH TH
R/AT 411, 4 MAIN, 4 CROSS
NEAR SHANKARNAG BUS
4
KAMALANAGAR, MYSURU CITY – 560 079.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI KARIAPPA N. A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . MR. LINGARAJU L.,
S/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO-1067, 16 CROSS
CHANDRA LAYOUT, I STAGE
BENGALURU – 560 070.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI MANU B. P., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN
C.C.NO.21651/2025 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE VI ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE FOR OFFENCES UNDER
SECTIONS 80, 85, 352 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS
INCLUDING THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS
DATED 26-6-2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-B1 AND B2 WHICH IS
ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CRIME NO.164/2025 OF CHANDRA LAYOUT
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE A AS AN ABUSE
OF PROCESS OF LAW.
5
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
These two petitions are preferred by all the accused in C.C.
No. 21651 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under
Sections 80, 85, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS. Writ Petition No.18828
of 2025 is preferred by the husband/accused No.1 and the
companion petition Writ Petition No.31907 of 2025 is preferred by
accused Nos. 2 to 6 . It is therefore, they are taken up together and
considered by this common order.
2. Heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel
appearing for petitioners along with Sri Kariappa N.A., Sri B. N.
Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing
for State and Sri Manu B P, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 in both the petitions.
6
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
3.1. Before entering upon the marrow of the controversy, it
becomes apposite to notice, in brief, the inter se relationship
between the parties to the lis . The deceased was the daughter of
rd
the 3 respondent/de-facto complainant. Accused No.1 was her
husband; accused Nos.2 and 3, her father-in-law and mother-in-law
respectively; accused No.4, her brother-in-law; and accused Nos.5
and 6, distant relatives of accused Nos.1 to 4. The matrimonial
alliance between accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant
was solemnized on 10-11-2024. Barely days after the sacred knot
was tied, accused No.1 departed to the United States on
23-11-2024 in pursuit of his avocation, while the bride remained in
India, awaiting the commencement of conjugal companionship.
Nearly three months thereafter, on 05-02-2025, the daughter of
the complainant journeyed to the United States to join her
husband. Yet, what ought to have blossomed into the serene
companionship of matrimony is alleged to have withered into
discord and estrangement. Within scarcely two months of her
arrival in the United States, the daughter returned to her parental
7
home in Bengaluru on 19-04-2025, carrying with her allegations of
cruelty at the hands of her husband. Four days thereafter, on
23-04-2025, accused Nos.2 to 6 are stated to have visited the
residence of the complainant with the professed object of bringing
about reconciliation between the spouses.
3.2. The events that unfolded thereafter took a tragic and
irreversible turn. On 24-04-2025, a day after the visit of accused
Nos.2 to 6, the daughter of the complainant is alleged to have
authored a death note and thereafter extinguished her own life. The
sorrowing father, shattered by the untimely demise of his daughter,
lodged a complaint, which came to be registered as Crime No.164
of 2025 for the offences afore-noted. Pursuant to the registration of
the FIR, the jurisdictional police undertook investigation and
ultimately laid a charge sheet against all the accused. The learned
jurisdictional Court, upon perusal of the material placed before it,
took cognizance and registered the impugned C.C. It is this
initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings that has driven
the petitioners to the portals of this Court, assailing the registration
of C.C. No.21651 of 2025 and the continuance of trial against them.
8
4.1. The learned senior counsel, Sri Hashmath Pasha,
appearing for the petitioners, would vehemently contend that there
is no allegation in the complaint or in the charge sheet, which can
become the ingredients of Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS/304B and
498A of the earlier regime of IPC. The learned senior counsel
submits that there was no demand or acceptance of dowry, either
at the time of marriage or before the marriage. There is neither
cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the
death of the deceased. Therefore, the said offences cannot be made
out. Marital discord between the husband and the wife and the
resultant death of the wife cannot become the ingredients under
Sections 80 or 85 of the BNS, unless the demand of dowry is
attached to it. The FIR does not include the offences under the
Dowry Prohibition Act at all. Therefore, the crime or filing of the
charge sheet cannot be sustained.
4.2. The learned senior counsel would lay emphasis on the
fact that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the members of the family.
Accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the brother-in-law and distant relatives
who only went to the house of the de-facto complaint to bring
9
about reconciliation between the husband and the wife and were
only mute spectators for what has happened therein. He would
further contend that there is no live link or proximate cause for the
death of the daughter of the complainant. The death note does not
implicate any of the accused persons. The learned senior counsel
would also contend that just prior to the fateful day, father is said
to have rebuked her daughter and alleged that she was
characterless, therefore, the commission of suicide by the daughter
happens and no blame can be laid against the present accused.
Therefore, all these factors must be taken note of and the crime
against the husband and the in-laws must be obliterated.
5. During the subsistence of the trial, it transpires that the
de-facto complainant and the family members enter into a
settlement with the accused and seek to place it before this Court
seeking quashment of the proceedings on account of settlement.
Since the offence is the one punishable under Section 80 of the
BNS/304B of the IPC – dowry death and the death having happened
within 5 months of marriage, this Court refused closure of the
proceedings on acceptance of the settlement. Therefore, the matter
10
was heard on its merit. The respondents would leave the decision to
the Court, as they have accepted the terms of the settlement
arrived at between the parties.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B N
Jagadeesha would vehemently oppose closure of the proceedings by
way of recording of the settlement. It is his submission that the
conversations between the deceased with other people would
clearly project the cruelty meted out by the husband against the
deceased. The proximate cause to the death is when the character
of the daughter of the complainant was questioned on 23-04-2025
by accused Nos.2 to 6. The next day, the death has happened after
writing a death note. The death note was clear that the husband
had put a surveillance on the wife in the United States as to whom
she would meet, whom she would talk to and on the basis of those
material the deceased is alleged to have had illicit relationship with
unknown persons and therefore when her character was
questioned, it was the proximate reason for her death. Insofar as
the allegation that the father also has instigated the death of the
daughter, during the trial if the father has to be drawn as an
11
accused, the prosecution will do so. That would not mean that the
allegations against the present petitioners should be obliterated.
Therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown
trial and this Court should not entertain a petition in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
7. The learned senior counsel would join issue in contending
that the arrest of accused No.1 was illegal and contrary to several
judgments of the Apex Court, since grounds of arrest was not
furnished to accused no.1. Apart from the said submission, the
learned senior counsel would submit that there was no cruelty or
harassment meted out on the deceased soon before her death for it
to become the ingredients of Section 304B/80 of the BNS .He would
again lay emphasize on the fact that accused nos.5 and 6 are not
even relatives by blood, marriage or adoption, they are drawn into
the web of proceedings without any rhyme or reason.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
12
9. The aforesaid facts, being matters borne out by the record,
do not require prolix reiteration, save and except the skeletal
narration necessary for adjudication. The marriage between
accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant was solemnized
on 10-11-2024. Accused No.1, who was residing in the United
States, returned thereto, shortly after the marriage, while the wife
joined him nearly three months later, on 05-02-2025. It is in that
distant land, far removed from the protective embrace of her
parental home, that the first fissures in the marital bond are alleged
to have surfaced. What began as incompatibility is stated to have
gradually ripened into incessant discord, with quarrels erupting on a
near day-to-day basis between the husband and wife. Unable, as
alleged, to withstand the cruelty meted out to her, the deceased
returned to Bengaluru on 19-04-2025 and sought refuge in the
home of her parents.
10. Four days thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 6 are said to have
descended upon the residence of the complainant on 23-04-2025.
What ostensibly commenced as an attempt at reconciliation is
13
alleged to have degenerated into a bitter confrontation. Questions
were posed to the deceased as to why she had abandoned the
matrimonial home and returned to India. Tempers flared; harsh
words were exchanged. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 6
departed from the complainant’s residence at about 4.00 p.m.,
leaving in their wake an atmosphere surcharged with humiliation,
anguish and emotional devastation. The record would further
reveal that even the complainant-father, overwhelmed by
frustration at his daughter’s abrupt return after marriage, is
alleged to have rebuked her. The cumulative weight of these
circumstances is stated to have driven the deceased into the
abyss of despair, culminating in the tragic act of suicide on
the very next day, i.e., on 24-04-2025 . Before embracing
death, the deceased is said to have penned a death note - a
document which assumes profound significance in the adjudication
of the present proceedings. It reads as follows:
“Hi
Sorry pappa mummy nan inda nimge problem but nijja
heltini nan aur fix adre saku illa nan life nemdhi idre saku
annod ithu bitre yav affair illa
Howdu was talking to many frnds as I was alone.
14
Aura kelidre its ok sleep beda adige yen madthiya antha
yella heli aur mane aur athra nan madthailla anthane. Nan
yenu kelilla anthare
Ega nodu aur name karlilla antha nu problem.
Q2
I agree nan maduve admele Swalpa dina mathra Contact
Madhe adre adake reason aur helid mathu. (1) No emotional
got married for dad (2) Ninu bere aun jothe hogthiya if you
are in US antha
Yesto Sari illa marthu text madana may not be the way I
think antha text madidhe.
Nand problem idhe antha alli hogi aur nam frnds phone keli
helthare andmele ilindane yak we will stay in 2 rooms andidu
yake nan land ago munche ne seprate room ithidu.
I Cried and went to him but aur nimge aur ammange yella
heli baisudru. Mathe horde bidtara I am low atha mathe yella
jagala. Adeke nana nan frnds jothe athu kardu madhe.
Q2
Onde little finger saha touch madilla Aur amma cook
together andre asthe hodre nayi thara nodi hogu andru So
nanu nimge cooling time bere aur idre ista agallha antha
sumne adhe.
Ega yella sullu heli jothege affair anthare.
Nan yest yella think madidhini nan life bagge andre
Aure nan ista illa adake aur nan mele baro hage mathe nan
jothe bere aur parents jothe bere heli nand tappu andru.
Nimge gothu food topics yest sullu helidru antha.
Q3
Aur olleour agine irbeku antha nannge mental torture kottu
nane divorce keli antha madidu. Nan muka saha nodala.
Kali sink kode nodi mathadodu. Nan alli topic alle aur keli
solve madhi adre auru months together yella marthmele
15
bandu parents athra helthare. If he needs to get this fixed
nan jothe mathadbeku allva.
Pappa nange yav affair illa. Frnds mathe mathu aste.
Nange yav relationship mele ase illa. Yare bandru nang beda
I need peace aste Olle frnds idare not in
Q3
terms of money or affair just nan helid kelskothare.
Nan atu kardidu nan life ge ast think madidu nan lifege ond
dina preethi illa adre bari kopa. Key kelidake beggarge
yesiyo thara yesdi hogodu. Literaly nan floor inda pick
madkonde
Yavaglu busy busy busy andre nan yen madli.
Q4
Aurag Avre divoce thagoloke ista ilde adeke hege torture
madha aura so that I take divorce
Illa nane hella, illa munde family sariyogatha yella thara.
Nang bekididu affection adana aurne direct agi keldhe
Madhuve hudgi kelod aur husband time and company
aur amma yella force madi nanna horgade karkond hogu
anbeku
aur ammge force madidake nan room share madthare. Nan
jothe take your pic andur aur amman athra selfie anthare.
Yest dina nim athara heli samadhana madkolli heli.
Adake nan frnds athara yella helkothaidhu aste hortu affair
alla.
Q4
Infact sometimes aur mid night hogodu yavaglo mid night
barod nodi aur ex.girlfrnd Andra hudgi ista idhu nanna
madhuve agidake heg madthaidare ankondhe pain iruthe
allva antha sumne adhe.
Aure helidru aur amma nimalli idbedu manege barbeda
andidru antha. Adike he dropped off marrying her.
16
Nand aurige engagement admele kelde nan mele kopana yak
phone message illa antha aur helidru for holidays thumba
kelsa antha anda don’t worry nan yenidru ansadre helithini
antha. So
Q4
Anniversary yella wish madi swalpa busy adre about passport
visa ticket antha. Avaga aure 2 days once message madidre
nan hagu egu madhe.
Pappa nand adige topic alli yenu tapilla.
Nanagi nane sorry I will change heli anthanu kelidini
Nand ond mistake was talking on phone with frnds and
crying
S…… alvala yede frnds jothe math adidini.
Because I didn’t have that emotional safety, affection or he
was not even seeing my face. Q5
Nijja mane bittu hogthini adre affair illa pappa
Nang madhuve admelle yella baya adakke mistake baya
dabbi pack madi late agbiduthe anno baya, yar yen anthare
anno baya aur bandre nan hall alli illa andre baithare anno
baya
Yesto sari washroom control madkondu amele hogidini
Q5
Madhuve hu andmele nan bari over think madi aur different
agi irod rindha yella tension bittu bari aur mathe nan married
life thought aste.
Nan savige nane karna.”
17
Upon the tragic demise of the deceased, the complainant-father
approached the jurisdictional police, leading to the registration of
Crime No.164 of 2025 for the aforesaid offences. Since the genesis
of the present proceedings lies in the untimely death of the young
bride, the death note authored by her, and the complaint lodged
thereafter, it becomes necessary to advert to the complaint in some
detail. It reads as follows:
“ರವ ೆ,
ೕ ಇ ೆಕ
,
ಚಂ ಾ ೇಔ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
ೕ !ಾ"ೆ
ಇಂದ,
S/o
ಂಗ$ಾಜು ಎ'
ಂಗಪ)(ೇ)
59
ವಯಸು
1067, 16
ನಂಬ /ಾ
ಚಂದ ೇಔ, 0ದಲೇ WÀ ಟ
560070
ೆಂಗಳ ರು
Mob : 9620620531
: 34
3ಷಯ ನನ5 ಮಗ7ಾದ 8ೌಮ:ಳ ವಯಸು 8ಾ3 ೆ /ಾರಣ$ಾದ ಗಂಡ 3ನ=
>ಾವ ?ದ@ಯ: ಅBೆC Dೆ ೕಮ ಮತುC ಅವರ ಎರಡ ೇ ಮಗ ಸಂಜ= ಮತುC
ನಂಜುಂಡಪ) ಮತುC ಅವರ ಮಗ ಅರುF ರವರ 3ರುದ@ ದೂರು
HೕಲIಂಡ 3ಷಯ/ೆI ಸಂಬಂJ?ದಂBೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮL
M NOಸುವP ೇೆಂದ$ೆ ಾನು ಈ
SÁ
HೕಲIಂಡ 37ಾಸದ
M ಾನು, ನನ5 QೆಂಡN Qಾಗೂ ಇಬRರು QೆಣುSಮಕI7ೆ ಂTೆ ಯಂ
UಾಸUಾVರುBೆCೕ ೆ ನನ5 0ದಲ ಮಗO ೆ ಸು>ಾರು 8 ವಷXಗಳ Yಂ ೆ 3UಾಹUಾVದು@ ಅವರ
18
2024
ಾಂಪತ: ಸುಖUಾVರುತC ೆ YೕVರುUಾಗ ನUೆಂಬ Nಂಗಳ\ ರಂದು ನನ5 ಎರಡ ೇ ಮಗO ೆ
D vÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ
Hೖಸೂ ನ ಲನಹO^ _Uಾ?`ಾದ 3ನ= ಎಂಬುವ ೆ 3Uಾಹ >ಾa/ೊb ರುBೆCೕೆ
ಮದುUೆ ಆದ ಒಂ ೇ Uಾರದ
M Hೕ ೆ NO?ದ 3ನ= ರವರು ನನ5 ಮಗ7ಾದ 8ೌಮ:ಳನು5 ಇ
Meೕ
2
fಟು ಅH ಕ/ೆI QೋVರುBಾC$ೆ ನಂತರ ಸು>ಾರು Nಂಗಳ\ ಕ7ೆದ ನಂತರ ನನ5 ಮಗಳನು5
ಅH ಕ/ೆI ಕ$ೆ?/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ಅH ಕ/ೆI Qೋದ ನಂತರ ಅವ7ೆ ಂTೆ ಸ `ಾದ
ವತX ೆಯನು5 >ಾಡ ೆ ಪ NTನ ನನ5 ಮೃತ ಮಗ7ೆ ಂTೆ `ಾವP ೇ ಸ/ಾರಣ3ಲMTದ@ರೂ
ಅನಗತ:UಾV ಜಗಳ Bೆ ೆದು ಪ NTನ >ಾನ?ಕ Qಾಗೂ ೈYಕ Yಂ8ೆ _ೕಡುNCದ@ ೆಂದು ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\
.
ಬದುh ಾ@ಗ iೕ_ನ ಮೂಲಕ NO?ರುBಾC7ೆ ಆ zÁUÀÆå ಾವPಗಳ\ ಮ`ಾXT ೆ ಅಂj ನನ5 ಮಗO ೆ
Qೊಂ ಾk/ೆ >ಾa/ೊಂಡು Qೋಗು ಎಂದು ಸಲQೆ _ೕaರುBೆCೕ ೆ ನಂತರ Hೕ ೆ NO?ದ 3ನ= ಅವರ
zÀÄ ðvÀ
ವ ೆ lNlೕ ದು@ ನನ5 ಮಗ7ೆ ಂTೆ `ಾವP ೇ ೈYಕ ಸಂಪಕXವನು5 ಇಟು /ೊಂaರುವPTಲM
Qಾಗೂ ಪ N Tವಸ _ೕನು ೇ$ೆಯವ$ೊಂTೆ ಅ ೈNಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇಟು /ೊಂaT@ೕಯ ಎಂದು QೇO
ಪ NTನ >ಾನ?ಕ Qಾಗು ೈYಕ hರುಕುಳ /ೊಡುNCದ@ ೆಂದು ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ಬದುhದ@ ಸಮಯದ
M ನನ ೆ
NO?ದಳ\ ಈ 3nಾರವ £ÀÄß ನoನ ಮಗಳ\ ಅವರ ಅBೆC ಮತುC >ಾವ_ ೆ NO? ಾಗ ಅವರು ಸಹ ಮಗನ
ಕು ªÀÄäQÌ _ಂದ _ೕನು ೇ$ೆಯವ$ೊಂTೆ ಅ ೈNಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ElÄÖPÉÆAr¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ Yೕ`ಾO?
ಅವರು ಸಹ ನನ5 ಮಗO ೆ >ಾನ?ಕUಾV Yಂ8ೆಯನು5 _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ Qಾಗೂ _ನ5ಂತವರು 8ಾಯ ೇಕು
.
ಎಂದು ºÁ Vಂ ಾೆ Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು ಎಂದು ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ NO?ರುBಾC7ೆ ಇ ಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\
19. 4. 2025
3ನ=ರವರ >ಾನ?ಕ Qಾಗೂ ೈYಕ Yಂ8ೆಯನು5 Bಾಳ ಾರೆ T ಾಂಕ ರಂದು
23.4. 2025
Uಾಪ ನಮL ಮ ೆೆ ಬಂTದು@ ನಂತರ T ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಏ/ಾಏh Hೕ ೆ NO?ದ ?ದ@ಪ)
Dೆ ೕಮ ಅವರ h ಯ ಮಗ Qಾಗೂ ನಂಜುಂಡಪ) ಮತುC ನಂಜುಂಡಪ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ನಂಜುಂಡqಪನ ಮಗ
3:00
UÀAmÉAiÀÄ
ಮrಾ:ಹ5 ಸಮಯದ
M ನಮL ಮ ೆೆ ಬಂದು ನನ5 ಮಗ7ೆ ಂTೆ sೋ$ಾV ಜಗಳ >ಾa
ಅUಾಚ: ಶಬ@ಗOಂದ _ಂT?ರುBಾC$ೆ Qಾಗೂ ಮುಂದುವ$ೆದು _lLಂ ಾV ನಮL ಕುಟುಂಬ Qಾಗೂ ನನ5
ಮಗನ jೕವನ Qಾ7ಾV ೆ Qಾಗೂ _ೕನು ನuೆBೆ ೆಟವಳ\ ೇ$ೆಯವ$ೊಂTೆ ಅಕ ಮ ಸಂಬಂಧ
ಇಟು /ೊಂaT@ೕಯ _ನ5ಂತಹವರು ಬದುhರುವPದhIಂತ 8ಾಯುವP ೇ Hೕಲು Qಾಗೂ _ನ5ನು5 ನನ5
ಮ ೆೆ 8ೇ ?/ೊಳ\^ವPTಲM _ೕನು ಸತC$ೆ ನಮ ೆ ೆಮLT ಎಂದು _ಂT?ರುBಾC$ೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದ
M ನನ5
ಮಗಳ\ ನನ5 ೇನು ತv)ಲM _ಮL ಮಗ_ ೆ ೈಂVಕ jೕವನ ನuೆಸುವ 8ಾಮಥ:X3ಲM ಅ ೊಂದು ತಪ)ನು5
ಮುxy/ೊಳ\^ವ ಸಲುUಾV ನನ5 Hೕ ೆ ಈ ಅ ೈNಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಎಂಬ ಸುಳ\^ 3ಷಯವನು5 ಸೃz ?ರುBಾC$ೆ
ಈ ಒಂದು Hೕ ೆ QೇOದ ಘಟ ೆ |ಂದ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ತುಂ ಾ ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು
.
ರೂl ೆ QೋV ಆತLಹBೆ: >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC7ೆ
ಈ Hೕ ೆ NO?ದ ಆ$ೋvಗಳ ಉ ೆ@ೕಶಪ~ವXಕ ಪ nೋದೆ Dೆ ೕರ"ೆ ಮತುC >ಾನ?ಕ
Qಾಗೂ ೈYಕ Yಂ8ೆ|ಂದ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ಆತLಹBೆ: >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC7ೆ Qಾಗೂ ನನ5 ಮಗಳ 8ಾ3 ೆ
19
Hೕ ೆ QೇOದ ವ:hCಗಳ\ ೇರ /ಾರಣಕತX$ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ ಆದ@ ಂದ ಅವರ Hೕ ೆ ಕ•ಣ /ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ
ಜರುVಸ ೇ/ೆಂದು PÉý /ೊಳ\^BೆCೕ ೆ.
ಸY/-
ಇಂN ತಮL 3ƒಾ„?”
The complaint, in essence, narrates allegations of sustained
mental and physical cruelty at the hands of accused No.1,
coupled with accusations touching upon the chastity and
character of the deceased. It is further alleged that when the
deceased disclosed these acts of cruelty to her in-laws,
rather than receiving solace or support, she was subjected
to humiliation and derision, and was allegedly told that
“persons like her ought not to live.” The complaint also
recounts the visit of accused Nos.2 to 6 to the complainant’s
residence on 23-04-2025, where the deceased is alleged to
have been publicly humiliated, accused of illicit
relationships, and told that her very existence had ruined
the life of accused No.1. According to the complainant, these
acts of humiliation and mental cruelty became the
immediate precipitating factors that drove the deceased to
take the extreme step of ending her life .
20
11. A careful perusal of the complaint would reveal that the
gravamen of the allegations against accused No.1 pertains to
physical and mental cruelty, allegedly inflicted upon the deceased
during their stay in the United States. The complainant himself
admits that, despite such allegations, he had advised his daughter
to reconcile and continue the matrimonial relationship, evidently in
deference to societal expectations and familial honour. The
complaint further alludes to allegations concerning the absence of
physical intimacy between accused No.1 and the deceased, and to
accusations levelled by accused No.1 imputing illicit relationships to
the deceased. It is also alleged that accused Nos.2 to 6 visited the
complainant’s residence and subjected the deceased to verbal
abuse and humiliation, accusing her of destroying the life of
accused No.1. These allegations form the fulcrum upon which the
prosecution rests.
12. The investigation undertaken by the jurisdictional police,
coupled with the statements recorded from various witnesses,
21
culminated in the filing of a detailed charge sheet against the
petitioners. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in
column No.17 reads as follows:
“17 ,
/ೇ?ನ ಸಂ†ಪC 8ಾ$ಾಂಶ
-1
ಈ ೋ‡ಾ$ೋಪ"ಾ ಪb ಯ
M ನಮೂT?ರುವ 8ಾ† v`ಾXದು ಾರ$ಾದ ˆ ೕ
. , 59 ,
ಂಗ$ಾಜು ಎ' fo Tವಂಗತ
ಂಗಪ) ವಷX ರವರು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ ಚಂದ ೇಔ
, 16 , . 1067
ೕ !ಾ"ಾ Uಾ:vCಯ ಚಂದ ೇಔ 0ದಲ ೇ ಘಟ ೇ ಅಡ‰ರ8ೆC ನಂ ರ ಸ„ಂತ
.
ಮ ೆಯ
M ಕುಟುಂಬ ೊಂTೆ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಆತLಹBೆ:
, 33 -1 .
>ಾa/ೊಂaರುವ ಮೃBೆ 8ೌಮ: ವಷX ರವರು 8ಾ† ರವರ ಎರಡ ೇ ಮಗ7ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ Qಾಗೂ
-1 . .
ಎ ಆ$ೋv 3ಜಯo ಕು>ಾ ಎ ರವರ ಪN5`ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ 8ಾ† ರವರ ಹುಟೂ ರು Hೖಸೂರು
,, . , .
j ೆM b ನರ?ೕಪPರ BಾಲೂMಕು ಕ /ೊಪ)ಲು ಾಮ ಆVರುತC ೆ
mÉÖ
-1 . , 35 , -2 .
ಎ ಆ$ೋv 3ನ= ಕು>ಾ ಎ fo f ?ದ@ಯ: ವಷX ಎ f ?ದ@ಯ: fo
, 72 , -3 . , 52 , -4
Tವಂತಹ ೋರಯ: ವಷX ಎ Dೆ ೕ>ಾ /ೋಂ f ?ದ@ಯ: ವಷX ಎ ಸಂಜ=
. . , 32 , -2 -3
ಕು>ಾ ಎ fo f ?ದ@ಯ: ವಷX ರವರು ಒಂ ೇ ಕುಟುಂಬ ¸ÀÜ $ಾVದು@ ಎ ಮತುC ಎ
, -1 -4 -1- -2 , -1
ರವರು ದಂಪNಗ7ಾVದು@ ಎ ಮತುC ಎ ರವರು ಎ ಎ ದಂಪNಗಳ ಮಕI7ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ ಎ
-4 , , , . . . , 10
ಂದ ಎ ರವರು Qಾ
Hೖಸೂರು ನಗರ ಆಲನಹO^ ಬuಾವ"ೆ /ೆ ಇ f ಕnೇ YಂŠಾಗ ೇ
, 4 , . 18 . -1
ಅಡ‰ರ8ೆC ೇ ಮುಖ:ರ8ೆC ಮ ೆ ನಂ ರ ಸ„ಂತ ಮ ೆಯ
M Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ ಎ ಂದ
-4 , , , , ,
3 ರವರು ಮೂಲತಃ ಮಂಡ: j ೆM ಮಳವO^ BಾಲೂMಕು hರು ಾವಲು QೋಬO ಕ k ಅಂnೆ
®ÄÌ
. 1 . . ,
xಕI>ಾO ೆ /ೊಪ)ಲು ಆVರುತC ೆ ಎ ರವರು ಸು>ಾರು f ಇ ಪದ3 Uಾ:ಸಂಗ ಮುV?/ೊಂಡು
. -2
ಸು>ಾರು ಹತುC ವಷXTಂದ ಅHೕ /ಾದ
Meೕ ೆಲ?ರುBಾC$ೆ ಎ ರವರ ಕಂ ಾಯ ಇ ಾŒೆಯ
M
, -3 . -4 . .
ಾಮೆhI$ಾV 8ೇUೆಸ
M? _ವೃತC$ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ ಎ ರವರು ಗೃYk`ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ ಎ ರವರು f ಇ
. -1
ಪದ3ೕದರ ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ 8ಾ† ರವರ ಹುಟೂ ರು ಮತುC ಆ$ೋvಗಳ ಊರುಗ7ೆರಡೂ ಹNCರದ
.
ಊರುಗ7ಾVರುತCUೆ
-5 . , 71 -6
ಎ ಆ ನಂಜುಂಡಯ: fo Tವಂಗತ ರಂಗಯ: ವಷX ಮತುC ಎ ಅರುF ಕು>ಾ
. . , 38 , ,
ಎo fo ಆ ನಂಜುಂಡಯ: ವಷX ರವರು Qಾ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ ಕಲ>ಾಲನಗರ
, 4 , 4 , . 411
ಶಂಕ ಾXŽ ಬ?5 ಾ@ಣದ ಹNCರ ೇ ಅಡ‰ರ8ೆC ೇ ಮುಖ:ರ8ೆC ನಂ ರ ಸ„ಂತ ಮ ೆಯ
M
. -5 -6
Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ ಸದ ಎ ಮತುC ಎ ರವರ ಸ„ಂತ ಊರೂ ಕೂಡ xಕI>ಾO/ೆ /ೊಪ)ಲು
22
. -5 -1
ಾಮ ಆVರುತC ೆ ಎ ರವರು ಸದ ಎ ಮತುC 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಎರಡೂ ಕುಟುಂಬಗO ೆ ಪರಸ)ರ ಗಂಡು
, -1 -4 . -5
ಮತುC QೆಣುS Bೋ ?ದ ವ:hC`ಾVದು@ ಎ ಂದ ಎ ರವರ ಸಂಬಂJಕರೂ ಕೂಡ ಆVರುBಾC$ೆ ಎ
, . -6 -5
ರವರು ffಎಂvಯ
M 8ೇUೆ ಸ
M?ದು@ _ವೃತC ೌಕರ$ಾVರುBಾC$ೆ ಎ ರವರು ಎ ರವರ
, . . , .
ಮಗ ಾVದು@ f ಇ ಪದ3 Uಾ:ಸಂಗ >ಾaದು@ ŒಾಸV ಕಂಪ_ಯ
M /ೆಲಸ >ಾಡುNCರುBಾC$ೆ
-16 -1 , -17 -1
8ಾ† 3 ೋದರವರು 8ಾ† ರವರ ಪN5`ಾVದು@ 8ಾ† ಸು>ಾ ರವರು 8ಾ†
, -1
ರವರ 0ದಲ ೇ ಮಗ7ಾVರುBಾC7ೆ 8ಾ† ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬುವ ತಮL ಎರಡ ೇ ಮಗ7ಾದ
2024 -5
8ೌಮ:ರವ ೆ 3Uಾಹ >ಾಡಲು ಗಂಡು ಹುಡುಕುNCರುUಾ ೆ ೇ ಮದ:ದ
M ಎ ಆ$ೋvಯ
-1 , -1 -6 -1
ಮೂಲಕ ಎ ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸಂಪಕX/ೆI ಬಂTದು@ ಎ ಂದ ಎ ರವರು 8ಾ† ರವರ ಮ ೆೆ
, , -1
ಬಂದು QೋVದು@ ನಂತರ ಪರಸ)ರ >ಾತುಕBೆ`ಾVದು@ ಎ ಮತುC 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 3Uಾಹ >ಾಡಲು
, :23-08-2024
ಎರಡೂ ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳ\ ಒv)/ೊಂaದು@ T ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
-1
ಾಗರŠಾ3ಯ
Mರುವ 8ಾ„N Qೊ•ೇಲ5 DಾbXQಾಲ5
M 8ಾ„l ಮತುC ಎ ರವರ 3Uಾಹ
.
_ˆXBಾಥXUಾVರುತC ೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದ
M ಎರಡೂ ಕuೆಯವರು ಗಂಡು ಮತುC QೆkS ೆ ಪರಸ)ರ xನ5ದ
. 2024 9 10
ಉಂಗುರ _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ ೇ ನUೆಂಬ ಮತುC ೇ Bಾ ೕ•ನಂದು Hೖಸೂರು ನಗರದ
-1
ಆಲನಹO^ ಬuಾವ"ೆಯ
Mರುವ ೆಾ:h ಕ ಾ:ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ
M ಎ ಮತುC 8ಾಮ:ರವರ 3Uಾಹ
. -1 -6
ೆರUೇರುತCೆ ಸದ 3Uಾಹದ ಸಮಯದ
M ಈ Yಂ ೆ ಎ ಂದ ಎ ರವರು ಒBಾCಯ >ಾaದಂBೆ
-1 200 , -1 65
8ಾ† ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವ ೆ ಾಂ ತೂಕ x ಾ5ಭರಣ Qಾhದು@ ಎ ರವ ೆ ಾಂ ತೂಕದ
1250 . -1 -6
x ಾ5ಭರಣ Qಾಗೂ ಾಂ ತೂಕದ ೆO^ಯ ವಸುCಗಳನು5 _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ Qಾಗೂ ಎ ಂದ ಎ
ರವರು 3Uಾಹದ ಮುನ5 ಒBಾCಯ >ಾaದಂBೆ ೆಂಗಳ ನ
M ಅಥUಾ Hೖಸೂ ನ
M _Uೇಶನವನು5
-1 . -1 -6
ವರದ†"ೆ`ಾV _ೕಡಲು 8ಾ† ರವರು ಬಲವಂತUಾV ಒv)/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ ಎ ಂದ ಎ ರವರು
.
ಒBಾCಯ >ಾaದಂBೆ Hೖಸೂ ನ
Meೕ ಅದೂ@ `ಾV 3Uಾಹ >ಾa/ೊ ದು@ ಸದ 3Uಾಹ/ೆI
nÖ
38 40 -1
ಅಂ ಾಜು ಂದ ಲ’ Uೆಚyವನು5 8ಾ† ರವರು >ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ
-1 ,
3UಾಹDಾದ ನಂತರ ಎ ರವರು ಸು>ಾರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 fಟು ಅHೕ /ಾೆ QೋVದು@
. 2025 5
8ೌಮ:ರವರು ತವರು ಮ ೆಯ
MರುBಾC$ೆ ನಂತರ ೇ “ೆಬು ವ ರಂದು 8ೌಮ:ಳ\ ಅHೕ /ಾೆ
, -1 , -1
QೋVದು@ ಅHೕ /ಾದ
M ಎ ಮತುC 8ೌಮ: ಇಬR$ೇ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@ ಎ ರವರು
: 19-04-2025
8ೌಮ:ರವ ೆ _ೕaದ@ >ಾನ?ಕ ಮತುC ೈYಕ Yಂ8ೆ|ಂದ ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು T ಾಂಕ
-1 . : 23-04-
ರಂದು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಅHೕ /ಾTಂದ 8ಾ† ರವರ ಮ ೆೆ ಬಂದರು ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ T Tಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ
2025 3.00 -2 -6 -1
ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಮಾ:ಹ5 ಮಾ:ಹ5 ಮ ಮಾ:ಹ5 ಾ:ಹ5 ಸು>ಾರು ಸು>ಾರು ಸು>ಾರು ಸು>ಾರು ಗಂ•ೆೆ ಗಂ•ೆೆ ಗಂ•ೆ ಗಂ•ೆೆ ೆ ಎ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮ ಮೆೆ ೆೆ
, , -16 -17 , -2 -
ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಆ ಸಮಯದ
M ಸಮಯದ
M ಸಮಯದ ಸಮಯದ
M
M ಮೆಯ
M ಮೆಯ
M ಮ ಮೆಯ
M ೆಯ
M 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† Qಾಗೂ Qಾಗೂ Qಾಗೂ Qಾಗೂ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಇದ@ರು ಇದ@ರು ಇದ@ರು ಇದ@ರು ಎ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎ
6 , , -1
ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂT 8ೌಮ: ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ೆ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ಹುಡುಗ$ೊಂTೆ ಹುಡುಗ$ೊಂT ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaದು@ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು /ೊಂaದು@ ಎ
ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ಹುಡುಗ$ೊಂTೆ ಹುಡುಗ$ೊಂTೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaದು@ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaದು@
,
ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂT ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ೆ jೕವನ jೕವನ jೕವನ jೕವನ >ಾಡುNCಲM >ಾಡುNCಲM >ಾಡುNCಲM >ಾಡುNCಲM ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV _ಂJ?ದು@ _ಂJ?ದು@ _ಂJ?ದು@ _ಂJ?ದು@ ಆಗ ಆಗ ಆಗ ಆಗ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು Bಾನು Bಾನು Bಾನು Bಾನು
, -1
`ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾವPೇ `ಾವPೇ `ಾವP `ಾವPೇ ೇ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaಲM ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaಲM ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaಲM /ೊಂaಲM ಎ ರವ$ೇ ವ$ೇ ವ$ೇ ವ$ೇ ನನ5ನು5 ನನ5ನು5 ನನ5ನು5 ನನ5ನು5 QೆಂಡN`ಾV QೆಂಡN`ಾV QೆಂಡN`ಾV QೆಂಡN`ಾV
23
, ,
ೋa/ೊಂaಲM ೋa/ೊಂaಲM ೋa/ೊಂaಲM ೋa/ೊಂaಲM ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು Tನವ~ Tನವ~ Tನವ~ Tನವ~ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ನೊ5ಂTೆ ನೊ5ಂTೆ ನ ನೊ5ಂTೆ ೊ5ಂTೆ ಒbೆ ಒbೆ ಒb ಒbೆ ೆ ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಅವೆ ಅವೆ ಅವ ಅವೆ ೆ ಪPರುಷತ„ ಪPರುಷತ„ ಪPರುಷತ„ ಪPರುಷತ„
,
ಇೆeೕ ಇೆeೕ ಇ ಇೆeೕ ೆeೕ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಸಂಶಯ3ರುತCೆ ಸಂಶಯ3ರುತCೆ ಸಂಶಯ3ರುತC ಸಂಶಯ3ರುತCೆ ೆ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ೋಪಗಳನು5 ೋಪಗಳನು5 ೋಪಗಳನು5 ೋಪಗಳನು5 ಮುxy/ೊಳ^ಲು ಮುxy/ೊಳ^ಲು ಮುxy/ೊಳ^ಲು ಮುxy/ೊಳ^ಲು
ಇಲMಸಲMದ ಇಲMಸಲMದ ಇಲMಸಲMದ ಇಲMಸಲMದ ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ತಪP)ಗಳನು5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 Hೕೆ Hೕೆ Hೕ Hೕೆ ೆ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ >ಾಡುNCT@ೕ$ೆ >ಾಡುNCT@ೕ$ೆ >ಾಡುNCT@ೕ$ೆ >ಾಡುNCT@ೕ$ೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು
. , -1 , -2
QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದ
ಸಮಯದ
ಸಮಯದ ಸಮಯದ
8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವರೂ ರವರೂ ರವರೂ ರವರೂ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ Hೕ Hೕೆ ೆ /ೋಪೊಂaದು@ /ೋಪೊಂaದು@ /ೋಪ /ೋಪೊಂaದು@ ೊಂaದು@ ಎ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ
-6
ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ Hೕೆ Hೕೆ Hೕ Hೕೆ ೆ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದ@ನು5 >ಾaದ@ನು5 >ಾaದ@ನು5 >ಾaದ@ನು5 ೋa ೋa ೋa ೋa 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವ 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವೆ ೆ ಬುT”Uಾದ ಬುT”Uಾದ ಬುT”Uಾದ ಬುT”Uಾದ QೇO QೇO QೇO QೇO ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ ಗಂಡನ
,
ಮೆಯ
M ಮೆಯ
M ಮ ಮೆಯ
M ೆಯ
M ಅನುಸ?/ೊಂಡು ಅನುಸ?/ೊಂಡು ಅನುಸ ಅನುಸ?/ೊಂಡು ?/ೊಂಡು Qೋಗೇ/ೆಂದು Qೋಗೇ/ೆಂದು Qೋಗ Qೋಗೇ/ೆಂದು ೇ/ೆಂದು QೇOದು@ QೇOದು@ QೇOದು@ QೇOದು@ ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ಮಗಳ\ ಮಗಳ\ ಮಗಳ\ ಮಗಳ\ ತಪP) ತಪP) ತಪP) ತಪP) >ಾaದ@
M >ಾaದ@
M >ಾaದ@ >ಾaದ@
M
M ಾೇ ಾೇ ಾೇ ಾೇ
, .
ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಮೆ|ಂದ ಮೆ|ಂದ ಮ ಮೆ|ಂದ ೆ|ಂದ Qೊ Qೊರ Qೊ Qೊ ರೆ ರೆ ರೆ ೆ QಾಕುBೆCೕೆ QಾಕುBೆCೕೆ QಾಕುBೆCೕ QಾಕುBೆCೕೆ ೆ ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು _ೕಡುBೆCೕೆ _ೕಡುBೆCೕೆ _ೕಡುBೆCೕ _ೕಡುBೆCೕೆ ೆ ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ಮಕIಳನು5 ಮಕIಳನು5 ಮಕIಳನು5 ಮಕIಳನು5 ಸಂಪಾಯUಾV ಸಂಪಾಯUಾV ಸಂಪ ಸಂಪಾಯUಾV ಾಯUಾV
.
ˆಸುCಬದ”UಾV ˆಸುCಬದ”UಾV ೆಳ?ೆ@ೕೆ ೆಳ?ೆ@ೕೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇBಾ:T`ಾV ಇBಾ:T`ಾV QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ
ˆಸುCಬದ”UಾV ˆಸುCಬದ”UಾV ೆಳ?ೆ@ೕೆ ೆಳ?ೆ@ೕೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇBಾ:T`ಾV ಇBಾ:T`ಾV QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ QೇOರುBಾC$ೆ
:24-04-2025 -16 ,
T ಾಂಕ ರಂದು 8ಾ† ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಮಲಗುವ /ೊಠa ೆ ೆOೆ–
6.30
ಸು>ಾರು ಗಂ•ೆ ೆ QೋV ೋಡಾV 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಮಲಗುವ ಮಂಚದ Hೕ ೆ ?ೕ |ಂದ
.
?ೕ
ಂŽ “ಾ: £ÉÎ ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪb ರುBಾC$ೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪಟ
-2 3 ,
ಸ—ಳದ
M 8ಾ† ಮತುC ರವರ Qಾಜ$ಾNಯ
M ಪಂnಾಮ ಜರುV?ದು@
ೕ ಅJ/ಾ `ಾದ
-29 ( )
8ಾ† ರವರು ಅಪ$ಾಧ ಸ—ಳ ಪ ˆೕಲೆ ಅJ/ಾ ಗಳ\ 8ೋ/ೋ ಸಂಗ Y?/ೊಟ ŠೌNಕ
1) , 2) , 3) 4)
ವಸುCಗ7ಾದ uೆ vÉÆßà ¥É o 0 ೈ' iೕo ಮತುC nಾಕುಗಳನು5
: 80/2025 , -20
ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂaರುತC ೆ 8ಾ†
-4 9
ಆದ 3ƒೇಷ ತಹˆೕ ಾ@ Qಾಗೂ 8ಾ† ಂದ ರವರ ಸಮುLಖದ
M 3/ೊ ೕ`ಾ ಆಸ)Bೆ ಯ
, ,
ಶUಾ ಾರದ
M ಶವ ತ_Œೆ ಜರುV?ದರು ಮೃತ ೇಹದ Hೕ
ರುವ ಾಯಗಳ ಬ ೆ– ನಮೂದು
. -26 , . . .
>ಾaರುತC ೆ ಮY7ಾ
ೕ ಅJ/ಾ `ಾದ 8ಾ† ˆ ೕಮN /ಾUಾ:ˆ ೕ v ಎ ಐ Qಾಗೂ
-30 -21
ತ_ŒಾJ/ಾ `ಾದ 8ಾ† ರವರು ಇದು@ ಮೃತ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಮೃತ ೇಹವನು5 Uೈದ:$ಾದ 8ಾ†
, : 1196/2025 , 'DEATH IS
ರವ ಂದ ಶವ ಪ ೕ™ೆ >ಾa?ದು@ ವರT ಸಂŒೆ: ಅನು5 ಪuೆದು/ೊಂaದ@
DUE TO ASPHYXIA AS A RESULT OF HANGING * .
ಅšDಾ ಯ ವರT _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ
7 . -21
ಅಲM ೇ ಮೃತ ೇಹದ Hೕ ೆ ಾಯಗOರುವ ಬ ೆ– ನಮೂದು >ಾaರುತC ೆ Uೈದ:$ಾದ 8ಾ†
,
ರವರು ಮೃBೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಮೃತ ೇಹದ Hೕ
ದ@ ಬ•ೆ ಯನು5 ಸಂಗ Y?/ೊbದು@
ೕ
-26 , :81/2025
ಅJ/ಾ `ಾದ 8ಾ† ರವರು ತಂದು Qಾಜರುಪa?ದು@ ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
M
.
ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂaರುತC ೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಮೃತ ೇಹTಂದ Uೈದ:ರು ಸಂಗ Y?/ೊಟ 3 $ಾವನು5
¸Éì
-24 , 83/2025
ೕ ಅJ/ಾ `ಾದ 8ಾ† ರವರು ತಂದು Qಾಜರುಪa?ದು@ ಸ„ತು„ಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
M
, - 23 . . .
ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂaದು@
ೕ ಅJ/ಾ `ಾದ 8ಾ† ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಎ› ಎ ಎ'
, : FSL/FLMS/TX/1682/2025
ತœ ೆ ಕಳ\Y?ದು@ ವರT ಬಂTದು@ ವರT ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
M
'Residues of Volatile poisons, Ethyl alcohol, Pesticides, Alkaloids,
Narcotics, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepine group of drugs and Toxic
metal ions were not detected in all the above Stated Articles'
ಎಂದು
24
. -21
ಅšDಾ ಯ ವರT ಬಂTರುತC ೆ ಸದ ವರTಯನು5 3/ೊ ೕ`ಾ ಆಸ)Bೆ ಯ Uೈದ:$ಾಢ 8ಾ†
, .
ರವ ೆ _ೕa ಅಂNಮ ಸ)ಷ ಅšDಾ ಯ ವರT ಪuೆಯ ೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ
ಮೃBೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ಾಯುವ ಮುನ5 ಬ$ೆTರುವ uೆ vÉÆßÃmï /ೈಬರವk ೆ ಮತುC ಸYಯನು5
ತœ ೆ ಕಳ\Y? ವರT ಪuೆಯಲು ಅಗತ:3ರುವ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಒv)ತ ಬರವk ೆ ಮತುC ಸY ಸಂಗ ಹ
-1 -10
ಸಂಬಂಧ 8ಾ† ರವ ಂದ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಬರವk ೆ|ರುವ ೋ ಪPಸCವನು5 ಪಂಚ$ಾದ 8ಾ†
11
ಮತುC ರವರ Qಾಜ ಯ
M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: 90/2025 ರ
M
. .
ನಮೂT?ರುತC ೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ ಸYಗಳ\ ಲಭ:3ದು@ ಅವರ ಎ¢ a ಎ› ? ಾ:ಂ£ ŒಾBೆ ನಂ
50100011044948 , .
ಇದನು5 Bೆ$ೆಯಲು ಸY >ಾa ಸ
M?ರುವ “ಾರಂ /ೆ Uೈ? ಾಖೆಗಳ
-22 , -6. 10
ಅಸಲನು5
ೕ ಅJ/ಾ `ಾದ 8ಾ† ರವರು ತಂದು Qಾಜರುಪa?ದು@ 8ಾ† ಮತುC
: 141/2025 .
ರವರ Qಾಜ$ಾNಯ
M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
M ನಮೂT?ರುತC ೆ
,
ಸದ uೆ vÉÆßÃmï ಬರವk ೆ|ರುವ ೋ ಪPಸCಕ ಮತುC ಸYಗOರುವ ಾ:ಂ£ ŒಾBೆಯ
, .
ಾಖೆಗಳನು5 ಬರವk ೆ ತœ ೆ ಕಳ\Y? ವರT ಪuೆಯುವದು ಾh|ರುತCೆ
-1 : 04-06-2025
ಎ ಆ$ೋvಯು T ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಅHೕ /ಾTಂದ ೆಂಗಳ ನ
, . . .
/ೆಂDೇ ೌಡ ಅಂBಾ$ಾz¤ೕಯ 3>ಾನ _ ಾ@ಣ/ೆI ಬಂJದು@ ಎ' ಓ ? sಾ ಯ
Mದ@ ಆrಾರದ Hೕ ೆ
-1 ,
ಇlL ೇಷo ಅJ/ಾ ಗಳ\ ಎ ಆ$ೋvಯನು5 ವಶ/ೆI ಪuೆದು/ೊಂಡು ಸ—Oೕಯ
ೕಸರ ವಶ/ೆI
, -27 -1 ,
_ೕaದು@
ೕ ಅJ/ಾ `ಾದ 8ಾ† ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಎ ಆ$ೋvಯನು5 ಕ$ೆತಂದು
, .
Dಾ ಥlಕ 3nಾರ"ೆ >ಾaದು@ ಅಂ ೇ ದಸCV >ಾaರುತC ೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದ
M ಆ$ೋvಯ ವಶದ
Mದ@
ತ_Œೆ ೆ ಪ~ರಕUೆ_?ದ ಆತನು ಅHೕ /ಾದ
M 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTಗ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ
M ಮ ೆಯ
M
, ,
8ೌಮ:ರವ ೆ NOಯದಂBೆ $ೆ/ಾ¦X >ಾa/ೊಂaದ@ ಎರಡು $ೆ/ಾಡ–Xಳ\ Dೆ £ÉØçöÊ § 0 ೈ'
- 13 14
iೕನ–ಳನು5 ಪಂnಾಯುC ಾರ$ಾದ 8ಾ† ಮತುC ರವರ Qಾಜ ಯ
M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು
: 121/2025 . -1
ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
M ನಮೂT?ರುತC ೆ ಎ ಆ$ೋvಯು ಪ ಸುCತ ಾ:`ಾಂಗ
.
ಬಂಧನದ
MರುBಾC$ೆ
:23-04-225 -2 -6 -1 ,
T ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಎ ಂದ ಎ ರವರು 8ಾ† ರವರ ಮ ೆೆ Qೋದ Tನ
-1 ,
ಆ$ೋvಗಳ\ ಎ ರವ$ೊಂT ೆ 0 ೈ' ಕ$ೆ ಮೂಲಕ >ಾತ ಾa/ೊಂಡು ಆತನು _ೕaದ
-1 -2 -6 -1
_ ೇXಶನದಂBೆ 8ಾ† ರವರ ಮ ೆಯ
M ಎ ಂದ ಎ ರವರು 8ಾ† ಮತುC 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTಗ
-4 ,
ಜಗಳ >ಾaದ ಅವJಯ
M ಎ ರವರು ತಮL 0 ೈ' ನ
M ಧ¨_ ಸಂಗ ಹ >ಾa/ೊಂaದು@ ಅದನು5
, , ,
ಒಂದು Dೆo uೆ© ªÉÎ Qಾh/ೊಂಡು 0 ೈ' ನ
M a
ೕ >ಾaರುವP ಾV NO?ದು@ ನಂತರ Dೆ £ÉØçöÊ §
, -13 15
ಮತುC 0 ೈ' iೕo ಅನು5 Qಾಜರುಪa?ದು@ ಅವPಗಳನು5 ಪಂಚ$ಾದ 8ಾ† ಮತುC ರವರ
, : 130/2025 , .
Qಾಜ ಯ
M ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
M ನಮೂT?ರುತC ೆ
25
: 80/20205
ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
Mನ ಮೃBೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 0 ೈ' iೕo ಅನು5
ೕ
-28 . . . ,
ಅJ/ಾ `ಾದ ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ? ಇ ಎo
ೕ !ಾ"ೆ ೆ ಕಳ\Y?ದು@ 0 ೈ' iೕo
, .
ಾ£ ಆVದು@ Dಾ ವ¦X ೊNCಲMದ /ಾರಣ bೕ§ >ಾಡಲು 8ಾದ:3ಲMUೆಂದು ವರT _ೕaರುBಾC$ೆ
: 121/2025 130/2025 -1 -4
ಸ„ತುCಫಟ ಸಂŒೆ: ಮತುC ರ
Mನ ಎ ಮತುC ಎ ರವ ಂದ
,
ಅ>ಾನತುCಪa?/ೊಂಡ 0 ೈ' iೕನ–ಳ\ Dೆ Dೆ £ÉØçöʪÀÎ ಳ\ Qಾಗೂ Uಾ= $ೆ/ಾ¦X ಗಳನು5 ?ಐa
-28 , .
8ೈಬ
ೕ !ಾ"ೆ ೆ 8ಾ† ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಸ
M?ದು@ ವರT ಬರುವPದು ಾh|ರುತCೆ
-2 -6
ಎ ಂದ ಎ ಆ$ೋvಗಳ\ ಘನ ??Qೆ¢ ಾ:`ಾಲಯTಂದ ಷರತುC ಬ _ ೕ’"ಾ
zÀÞ
, ,
sಾlೕನು ಪuೆದು/ೊಂಡು Qಾಜ$ಾVದು@ ಆ$ೋvಗಳನು5 3nಾರ"ೆ >ಾaದು@ ಸ„ ಇnಾ« QೇO/ೆ
. :23-04-2025 -2 -6 -1
ಾಖ
?/ೊಂaರುತCೆ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ T Tಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಎ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮ ಮೆೆ ೆೆ
, -6 , -6 -1
QೋVಾ@ಗ QೋVಾ@ಗ QೋV QೋVಾ@ಗ ಾ@ಗ ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂT 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ೆ Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು
,
QೇOಾ@$ೆ QೇOಾ@$ೆ QೇO QೇOಾ@$ೆ ಾ@$ೆ ಎಂೇ ಎಂೇ ಎಂ ಎಂೇ ೇ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ ೆ ಹಲವP ಹಲವP ಹಲವP ಹಲವP ಪƒೆ5 ಪƒೆ5ಗಳನು5 ಪƒೆ5 ಪ ƒೆ5 ಗಳನು5 ಗಳನು5 ಗಳನು5 /ೇOದು@ /ೇOದು@ /ೇOದು@ /ೇOದು@ ಪರ ಪರ ಪರ ಪರ ಪPರಷೊಂTೆ ಪPರಷೊಂTೆ ಪPರಷ ಪPರಷೊಂTೆ ೊಂTೆ Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy
>ಾತಾಡುNCೕ`ಾ >ಾತ ಾಡುNCೕ`ಾ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 Yೕ`ಾOಸುವ Yೕ`ಾOಸುವ ೕNಯ
M ೕNಯ
M ಅಕಮ ಅಕ ಮ
>ಾತಾಡುNCೕ`ಾ >ಾತಾಡುNCೕ`ಾ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 Yೕ`ಾOಸುವ Yೕ`ಾOಸುವ ೕNಯ
M ೕNಯ
M ಅಕಮ ಅಕಮ
ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaರುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaರುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು ಸಂಬಂಧ3ಟು/ೊಂaರುವ /ೊಂaರುವ ೕNಯ
M ೕNಯ
M ೕNಯ
M ೕNಯ
M ಅವ>ಾನ ಅವ>ಾನ ಅವ>ಾನ ಅವ>ಾನ >ಾಡುವ >ಾಡುವ >ಾಡುವ >ಾಡುವ ೕNಯ
M ೕNಯ
M ೕNಯ
M ೕNಯ
M sೋರು sೋರು sೋರು sೋರು >ಾa >ಾa >ಾa >ಾa /ೇOರುವPದು /ೇOರುವPದು /ೇOರುವPದು /ೇOರುವPದು
. ,
ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತC ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: ಸ„Šಾವದ$ಾVದು@ ಸ„Šಾವದ$ಾVದು@ ಸ„Šಾವದ$ಾVದು@ ಸ„Šಾವದ$ಾVದು@ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ `ಾ$ೊಂTಗೂ Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy Qೆಚುy >ಾತಾಡದ >ಾತಾಡದ >ಾತ >ಾತಾಡದ ಾಡದ
-18
ಮೃಧು ಮೃಧು ಮೃಧು ಮೃಧು ಸ„Šಾ ಸ„Šಾವದವ$ಾVರುವPದು ಸ„Šಾ ಸ„Šಾ ವದವ$ಾVರುವPದು ವದವ$ಾVರುವPದು ವದವ$ಾVರುವPದು 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೌಮ:ರವರ 8ೆ5ೕYತ$ಾದ 8ೆ5ೕYತ$ಾದ 8ೆ5ೕYತ$ಾದ 8ೆ5ೕYತ$ಾದ 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ 3nಾರ"ೆ|ಂದ 3nಾರ"ೆ|ಂದ 3nಾರ"ೆ|ಂದ 3nಾರ"ೆ|ಂದ
. -1
NOದುಬಂTರುತCೆ NOದುಬಂTರುತCೆ NOದುಬಂTರುತC NOದುಬಂTರುತCೆ ೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಅHೕರ/ಾದ
M ಅHೕರ/ಾದ
M ಅHೕರ/ಾದ ಅHೕರ/ಾದ
M
M ಎ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂT ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ೆ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ /ಾಲದ
M
M ಅವಾದ ಅವಾದ ಅವ ಅವಾದ ಾದ
-18 ,
Bೊಂದ$ೆಯ Bೊಂದ$ೆಯ ಬೆ– ಬ ೆ– 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವ$ೊಂTTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTT ೆ ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa >ಾತಾaದು@ >ಾತ ಾaದು@ Uಾ Uಾ ಅq ಅq nಾ nಾ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ
Bೊಂದ$ೆಯ Bೊಂದ$ೆಯ ಬೆ– ಬೆ– 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವ$ೊಂTTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTTೆ ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa >ಾತಾaದು@ >ಾತಾaದು@ Uಾ Uಾ ಅq ಅq nಾ nಾ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ
. -18 , ,
>ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾaರುBಾC$ೆ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ nಾ nಾ nಾ nಾ ಅನು5 ಅನು5 ಅನು5 ಅನು5 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ ಅದನು5 ಅದನು5 ಅದನು5 ಅದನು5 ಪˆೕ
ಸಾV ಪˆೕ
ಸಾV ಪ ಪˆೕ
ಸಾV ˆೕ
ಸಾV 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು
, -1 -1
ಅHೕ/ಾದ
M ಅHೕ/ಾದ
M ಅHೕ ಅHೕ/ಾದ
M /ಾದ
M ಎ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂT ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ೆ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ /ಾಲದ
M
M ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 8ೌಮ:ರವರನು5 ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು
¢®è ,
ೆರO_ಂದಲೂ ೆರO_ಂದಲೂ ೆರO_ಂದಲೂ ೆರO_ಂದಲೂ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಮುbರು ಮುbರು ಮುb ಮುbರು ರು ವP ವP ವP ವP ಸ`ಾV ಸ`ಾV ಸ ಸ`ಾV `ಾV >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ
ಲM >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ
ಲM >ಾತ >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ
ಲM ಾaಸುNCರ
ಲM ಮೆಯ
M ಮೆಯ
M ಮ ಮೆಯ
M ೆಯ
M ಒಬRಳೆ5ೕ ಒಬRಳೆ5ೕ ಒಬRಳ ಒಬRಳೆ5ೕ ೆ5ೕ fಟು fಟು fಟು fಟು
Qೊರಗuೆ|ಂದ Qೊರಗuೆ|ಂದ Qೊರಗuೆ|ಂದ Qೊರಗuೆ|ಂದ fೕಗ fೕಗ fೕಗ fೕಗ Qಾh/ೊಂಡು Qಾh/ೊಂಡು Qಾh/ೊಂಡು Qಾh/ೊಂಡು QೋಗುNCದ@ರು QೋಗುNCದ@ರು QೋಗುNCದ@ರು QೋಗುNCದ@ರು ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮ ೆೆ ಬಂಾ ಬಂಾಗ ಬಂ ಬಂಾ ಾ ಪBೆ:ೕಕ ಪBೆ:ೕಕ ಪ ಪBೆ:ೕಕ Bೆ:ೕಕ ರೂಂನ
M ರೂಂನ
M ರೂಂನ ರೂಂನ
M
M
, ,
ಕುOತು/ೊಳ\^NCದ@ರು ಕುOತು/ೊಳ\^NCದ@ರು ಮೆಯ
M ಮ ೆಯ
M ಇಬR ಇಬR gÀÆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ರೂಂನ
M ರೂಂನ
M ಮಲಗುNCದು@ ಮಲಗುNCದು@ ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಒbೆ ಒb ೆ
ಕುOತು/ೊಳ\^NCದ@ರು ಕುOತು/ೊಳ\^NCದ@ರು ಮೆಯ
M ಮೆಯ
M ಇಬR ಇಬR ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ೇ$ೆ ರೂಂನ
M ರೂಂನ
M ಮಲಗುNCದು@ ಮಲಗುNCದು@ ಎಂTಗೂ ಎಂTಗೂ ಒbೆ ಒbೆ
, , 15
ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಮಲVರುವPTಲM ಸ`ಾV ಸ`ಾV ಸ ಸ`ಾV `ಾV >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ
ಲM >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ
ಲM ಇ
M >ಾತ >ಾತಾaಸುNCರ
ಲM ಾaಸುNCರ
ಲM ಇ
M ಇ
M ಇ
M ಇರಲು ಇರಲು ಇರಲು ಇರಲು ಆಗುNCಲM ಆಗುNCಲM ಆಗುNCಲM ಆಗುNCಲM ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು Uೇ7ೆ Uೇ7ೆ Uೇ7ೆ Uೇ7ೆ ಇನು5 ಇನು5 ಇನು5 ಇನು5
, .
Tನಗಳ
M Tನಗಳ
M Tನಗಳ Tನಗಳ
M
M ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ೆಂಗಳ ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ೆ ಬರTದ@
M ಬರTದ@
M ಬರTದ@ ಬರTದ@
M
M ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 ನನ5 uೆ¦ uೆ¦ uೆ¦ uೆ¦ ಾa ಾa ಾa ಾa ಬರುತCೆ ಬರುತCೆ ಬರುತC ಬರುತCೆ ೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇBಾ:J`ಾV ಇರುತCೆ ಇರುತCೆ ಇರುತC ಇರುತCೆ ೆ
,
ಅಲMೆ ಅಲMೆ ಅಲM ಅಲMೆ ೆ 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಅHೕ/ಾದ
M ಅHೕ/ಾದ
M ಅHೕ ಅHೕ/ಾದ
M /ಾದ
M ತನ5 ತನ5 ತನ5 ತನ5 ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ೊಂTೆ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ /ಾಲದ
M
M ತನಾಗುNCದ@ ತನಾಗುNCದ@ ತನ ತನಾಗುNCದ@ ಾಗುNCದ@ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC
,, -1, 16 17 .
Yಂ8ೆಯ Yಂ8ೆಯ Yಂ8ೆಯ Yಂ8ೆಯ ಬೆ– ಬೆ– ಬೆ– ಬ ೆ– 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವ ರವೆ ೆ ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa ಕ$ೆ>ಾa >ಾತಾಡುNCಾ@ಗ >ಾತಾಡುNCಾ@ಗ >ಾತ >ಾತಾಡುNCಾ@ಗ ಾಡುNCಾ@ಗ Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು Qೇಳ\NCದ@ರು ಅಂದ$ೆ ಅಂದ$ೆ ಅಂದ$ೆ ಅಂದ$ೆ
-1 -2 -6 ,
8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಅHೕ/ಾದ
M ಅHೕ /ಾದ
M ಇದ@ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ
M ಎ ಈತನು ಈತನು ಎ ಂದ ಂ ಎ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂT ೆ ಆಾೆ– ಆ ಾೆ–
8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು ಅHೕ/ಾದ
M ಅHೕ/ಾದ
M ಇದ@ ಇದ@ /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ
M ಈತನು ಈತನು ಂ ಂ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ಆಾೆ– ಆಾೆ–
, .
ಸಂಪಕXದ
Mದು@ ಸಂಪಕXದ
Mದು@ ಸಂಪಕXದ ಸಂಪಕXದ
Mದು@
Mದು@ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ ೆ >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ /ೊbರುBಾC$ೆ /ೊbರುBಾC$ೆ /ೊb /ೊbರುBಾC$ೆ ರುBಾC$ೆ ಅಲMೇ ಅಲMೇ ಅಲM ಅಲMೇ ೇ
-1 -1
Hೖಸೂನ
ರುವ Hೖಸೂನ
ರುವ Hೖಸೂ Hೖಸೂನ
ರುವ ನ
ರುವ 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ _Uೇಶನವನು5 _Uೇಶನವನು5 _Uೇಶನವನು5 _Uೇಶನವನು5 ಎ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ Qೆಸೆ Qೆಸೆ Qೆಸ Qೆಸೆ ೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ ೆ
-1 , : 19-04-
ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಒBಾCಯ ಒBಾCಯ ಒBಾCಯ ಒBಾCಯ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ >ಾaದು@ ಇೆಲMದಂದ ಇೆಲMದಂದ ಇ ಇೆಲMದಂದ ೆಲMದಂದ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ ಅನುಭ3?ದ ಅನುಭ3?ದ ಅನುಭ3?ದ ಅನುಭ3?ದ 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ: 8ೌಮ: ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ T Tಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ
2025 , :23-04-2025 -2 -6
ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ೆಂಗಳ ನ ೆಂಗಳ ನ ೆಂಗಳ ನ ೆಂಗಳ ನ ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮ ಮೆೆ ೆೆ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ T Tಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಎ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎ
26
,
ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮ ಮೆೆ ೆೆ ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟ /ೆಟಾV ಾV >ಾತಾa >ಾತಾa >ಾತ >ಾತಾa ಾa ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ >ಾaದ@ಂದ ಂದ ೊಂದು/ೊಂaದು@ ೊಂದು/ೊಂaದು@ ೊಂದು/ೊಂaದು@ ೊಂದು/ೊಂaದು@
.
ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ >ಾa/ೊಂaರುBಾC$ೆ
-6
ತ_Œಾ ತ_Œಾ ತ_Œಾ ತ_Œಾ /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ
M /ಾಲದ /ಾಲದ
M
M ಸಂಗY?ರುವ ಸಂಗY?ರುವ ಸಂಗ ಸಂಗY?ರುವ Y?ರುವ 8ಾ™ಾಾರಗOಂದ 8ಾ™ಾಾರಗOಂದ 8ಾ™ಾ 8ಾ™ಾಾರಗOಂದ ಾರಗOಂದ ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC 3nಾರ"ೆ 3nಾರ"ೆ 3nಾರ"ೆ 3nಾರ"ೆ ೊಳಪa?ದ ೊಳಪa?ದ ೊಳಪa?ದ ೊಳಪa?ದ 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ†
9, 12, 16 19 -1 -6
ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ QೇO/ೆಗOಂದ QೇO/ೆಗOಂದ QೇO/ೆಗOಂದ QೇO/ೆಗOಂದ ಎ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ 8ೌಮ:ರವೆ ೆ 8ೈಟು 8ೈಟು 8ೈಟು 8ೈಟು
,
ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ಬ$ೆದು/ೊಡುವಂBೆ ವರದ†"ೆಾV ವರದ†"ೆಾV ವರದ†"ೆ ವರದ†"ೆಾV ಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟಾV /ೆಟ /ೆಟಾV ಾV
,
AiÀÄÄÝ
ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ಆ/ೆಯನು5 ೈ ೈ ೈ ೈ ಅಕಮ ಅಕಮ ಅಕಮ ಅಕ ಮ ಸಂಬಂಧ3ೆeಂದು ಸಂಬಂಧ3ೆeಂದು ಸಂಬಂಧ3 ಸಂಬಂಧ3ೆeಂದು ೆeಂದು ಸುಳ\^ ಸುಳ\^ ಸುಳ\^ ಸುಳ\^ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ ಆ$ೋಪ >ಾa >ಾa >ಾa >ಾa ಅವ>ಾನ?ದ@ಂದ ಅವ>ಾನ?ದ@ಂದ ಅವ>ಾನ?ದ@ ಅವ>ಾನ?ದ@ಂದ ಂದ
, .. ,
ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು Bಾನು Bಾನು ಆHೕ/ಾದ
M ಆHೕ /ಾದ
M ಇದ@
M ಇದ@
M ಗಂಡ_ಂದ ಗಂಡ_ಂದ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ QೆnಾyV QೆnಾyV 8ಾಯುವPದಂತು 8ಾಯುವPದಂತು
ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು Bಾನು Bಾನು ಆHೕ/ಾದ
M ಆHೕ/ಾದ
M ಇದ@
M ಇದ@
M ಗಂಡ_ಂದ ಗಂಡ_ಂದ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ QೆnಾyV QೆnಾyV 8ಾಯುವPದಂತು 8ಾಯುವPದಂತು
-1 ,
ಖxತUೆಂದು ಖxತUೆಂದು ಖxತUೆಂದು ಖxತUೆಂದು Uಾಪಸು Uಾಪಸು Uಾಪಸು Uಾಪಸು ೆಂಳ ನ ೆಂಳ ನ ೆಂಳ ನ ೆಂಳ ನ 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮ ಮೆೆ ೆೆ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ಬಂTದು@ ನಂತರವ~ ನಂತರವ~ ನಂತರವ~ ನಂತರವ~ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ
:23-04-2025 -2 -6 -1
Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ T Tಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಎ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† 8ಾ† ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಮೆೆ ಮೆೆ ಮ ಮೆೆ ೆೆ ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು
, ,
8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂT 8ೌಮ:ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ೆ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ ಜಗಳ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ಂದ >ಾaದ@ >ಾaದ@ಂದ ಂದ ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ೊಂದು/ೊಂಡು ತನ5ೇನೂ ತನ5ೇನೂ ತನ5 ತನ5ೇನೂ ೇನೂ ತv)ಲM ತv)ಲM ತv)ಲM ತv)ಲM ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ತಪP) ತಪP) ತಪP) ತಪP)
>ಾaಲMUೆಂದು >ಾaಲMUೆಂದು >ಾaಲMUೆಂದು >ಾaಲMUೆಂದು `ಾಗೂ `ಾಗೂ `ಾ `ಾಗೂ ಗೂ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ Bೊಂದ$ೆ /ೊಡುವ /ೊಡುವ /ೊಡುವ /ೊಡುವ ಮುಗ” ಮುಗ” ಮುಗ” ಮುಗ” ಮನ?ನ ಮನ?ನ ಮನ? ಮನ?ನ ನ Qೆ"ಾSದ Qೆ"ಾSದ Qೆ"ಾSದ Qೆ"ಾSದ ಮದುUೆ`ಾV ಮದುUೆ`ಾV ಮದುUೆ`ಾV ಮದುUೆ`ಾV /ೇವ /ೇವ /ೇವ /ೇವ /ೆಲವP /ೆಲವP /ೆಲವP /ೆಲವP
, -2
Tನಗಳ\ Tನಗಳ\ >ಾತ >ಾತ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡ ೊಂTೆ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@ ತನ5 ತನ5 ಗಂಡನು ಗಂಡನು ಪN5`ಾV ಪN5`ಾV ?„ೕಕಸೇ ?„ೕಕ ಸೇ ಎ
Tನಗಳ\ Tನಗಳ\ >ಾತ >ಾತ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ ಗಂಡೊಂTೆ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@ Uಾಸ>ಾa/ೊಂaದು@ ತನ5 ತನ5 ಗಂಡನು ಗಂಡನು ಪN5`ಾV ಪN5`ಾV ?„ೕಕಸೇ ?„ೕಕಸೇ
-6 ,
ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ರವ$ೊಂT ರವ$ೊಂTೆ ೆ 8ೇ/ೊಂಡು 8ೇ/ೊಂಡು 8ೇ 8ೇ/ೊಂಡು /ೊಂಡು >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV ೈYಕUಾV Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ Yಂ8ೆ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@ _ೕaದು@
,
ಇೆಲMದ@ಂ ಇೆಲMದ@ಂದ ಇ ಇೆಲMದ@ಂ ೆಲMದ@ಂ >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV >ಾನ?ಕUಾV ೊಂದುQೋVದು@ ೊಂದುQೋVದು@ ೊಂದುQೋVದು@ ೊಂದುQೋVದು@ uೆ¬ uೆ¬ uೆ¬ uೆ¬ ೋ ೋ ೋ ೋ ಬ$ೆTಟು ಬ$ೆTಟು ಬ$ೆTಟು ಬ$ೆTಟು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು 8ೌಮ:ರವರು
. -1 -6
ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ೇಣುQಾh/ೊಂಡು ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: ಆತLಹBೆ: >ಾa/ೊಂaರುವPದು >ಾa/ೊಂaರುವPದು >ಾa/ೊಂaರುವPದು >ಾa/ೊಂaರುವPದು ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತC ಕಂಡುಬಂTರುತCೆ ೆ ಆ Hೕ$ೆೆ Hೕ$ೆೆ Hೕ$ೆ Hೕ$ೆೆ ೆ ಎ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಎ
85, 80, 352 3(5) . . . -2023
ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ Hೕ
ನ Hೕ
ನ Hೕ Hೕ
ನ
ನ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಸಹUಾಚಕ ಸಹUಾಚಕ ಸಹUಾಚಕ ಸಹUಾಚಕ f ಎo ಎo ಎo ಎo ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ ರ ಅaಯ
M ಅaಯ
M ಅaಯ ಅaಯ
M
M
.
ಆ$ೋಪUೆಸVರುವPದು ಆ$ೋಪUೆಸVರುವPದು ದೃಢಪbರುತCೆ ದೃಢಪb ರುತCೆ
ಆ$ೋಪUೆಸVರುವPದು ಆ$ೋಪUೆಸVರುವPದು ದೃಢಪbರುತCೆ ದೃಢಪbರುತCೆ
, -1 . , 35 , -2 .
ಆದುದ ಂದ ಎ ಆ$ೋv 3ನ= ಕು>ಾ ಎ fo f ?ದ@ಯ: ವಷX ಎ f
, 72 , -3 . , 52 , -4
?ದ@ಯ: fo Tವಂತಹ ೋರಯ: ವಷX ಎ Dೆ ೕ>ಾ /ೋಂ f ?ದ@ಯ: ವಷX ಎ
. . . 32 , -5 . ,
ಸಂಜ= ಕು>ಾ ಎ fo f ?ದ@ಯ: ವಷX ಎ ಆ ನಂಜುಂಡಯ: fo Tವಂಗತ
, 71 -6 . . , 38
ರಂಗಯ: ವಷX ಮತುC ಎ ಅರುF ಕು>ಾ ಎo fo ಆ ನಂಜುಂಡಯ: ವಷX ರವರ
85, 80, 352 3(5) . . . -2023
3ರುದ” ಕಲಂ ಸಹUಾಚಕ f ಎo ಎ ರ ಅaಯ
M ೋ‡ಾ$ೋಪ"ಾ
.
ಪb ಯನು5 ಘನ ಾ:`ಾಲಯ/ೆI _UೇT?/ೊಂaರುತC ೆ
,
_Uೇದ ೆ
193(9)
ಪ ಕರಣದ
M ಈ ಮುಂT ನಮೂT?ರವ ಾh ಕ ಮಗOಾV ಕಲಂ
. . . . -2023
f ಎo ಎ ಎ ರaಯ
M ತ_Œೆ ಮುಂದುವ$ೆ? ವರT ಸ
Mಸಲು ಅನುಮN ಾV
.
_UೇT?/ೊಂaರುತC ೆ
1) : 80/20205 ,
ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
Mನ 0 ೈ' iೕo bೕ§ ಆಗ ೇ|ದು@ ಸದ 0 ೈ'
. . . .
iೕo ಅನು5 ಎ› ಎ ಎ' ೆ ಕಳ\Y? bೕ§ ಮತುC ವರT ಪuೆಯ ೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ
27
2) : 121/2025 130/2025 ,
ಸ„ತುCಪಟ ಸಂŒೆ: ಮತುC ರ
Mನ 0 ೈ' iೕo ಗಳ\ Dೆ £ÉØçöʪÀÎ ಳ\
/ ,
Qಾಗೂ Uಾ= $ೆ/ಾಡ–Xಟಳನು58ೈಬ
ೕ !ಾ"ೆ ೆ bೕ§ uಾ•ಾ ಎ/ಾ¤£ ೆ _ೕaದು@
. . . . .
ವರT ಬರ ೇ/ಾVೆ ನಂತರ ಎ› ಎ ಎ' ೆ ಕಳ\Yಸ ೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ
3) : 80/2025 , : 90/2025
ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
Mನ uೆ¬ ೋ ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
M ಮೃBೆಯ
: 141/2025
ಬರವk ೆ|ರುವ ೋ ಪPಸCಕ Qಾಗೂ ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
Mನ ಸYಗಳನು5 ಬರವk ೆ
.
ತœ ೆ ಕಳ\Y? ವರT ಪuೆಯ ೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ
4) 83/2025 ,
ಸ„ತುCಪb ಸಂŒೆ: ರ
Mನ 3 ¸Áì gÁªÀ£ÀÄß ಎ› ಎ ಎ' ೆ ಕಳ\Y?ದು@ ವರT
,
ಲಭ:UಾVರುತC ೆ ಸದ ವರTಯನು5 3/ೊ ೕ`ಾ ಆಸ)Bೆ ಯ Uೈದ: ೆ ಕಳ\Y? ಅಂNಮ ಅšDಾ ಯ
.
ವರT ಪuೆಯ ೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ
5)
ಮಂದುವ$ೆದ ತ_Œಾ /ಾಲದ
M ಲಭ:Uಾಗುವ ಇತ$ೆ 8ಾ PÁëöå rಾರ ಮತುC 8ಾ† ಾರರ 3nಾರ"ೆ
.”
>ಾa ಮುಂTನ ಕ ಮ /ೈ ೊಳ^ೇ/ಾVರುತCೆ
(Emphasis added)
The summary of the charge sheet, as reflected in Column
No.17, portrays a narrative of sustained allegations of dowry
demands, emotional cruelty, accusations touching upon the
deceased’s character, and matrimonial discord that allegedly
drove the deceased into a state of unbearable mental agony.
The charge sheet further adverts to chats, telephonic
conversations, witness statements, and the death note itself,
all of which, according to the prosecution, constitute
material sufficient to proceed against the accused for
offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 352 read with
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
28
13. The concerned Court, upon perusal of the final report and
the accompanying material, has taken cognizance by observing
that, the prosecution papers prima facie disclose the ingredients of
the aforesaid offences and that sufficient grounds exist to proceed
against accused Nos.1 to 6. The said order reads as follows:
“Order
Perused,
The I.O has filed final report against accused no 1 to 6 for
the offence punishable u/sec. 80, 85, 352, 3(5) of BNS. Perused
the prosecution papers. Materials available on record discloses
the ingredients of offence punishable u/sec..80, 85, 352, 3 (5)
of BNS. Prima-facie ground to proceed against the accused no 1
to 6.
Hence, by invoking Sec. 210(1) (b) of BNSS., cognizance
taken for the offences punishable U/Sec: 80, 85, 352, 3(5) of
BNS Register the Criminal Case against accused no 1 to 2 in
Register No.III.
SS to Accused no 2 to 6
Call on 30-06-2025.”
It is this order of cognizance that is now called in question before
this Court. The central issue, therefore, that falls for consideration
is, whether the proceedings deserve to be interdicted at the
29
threshold, on the ground that the allegations do not disclose the
ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 352 and
3(5) of the BNS.
14. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
has laid considerable emphasis upon the submission that, in the
absence of a specific allegation of dowry demand immediately
preceding the death, the offence of dowry death under Section 80
of the BNS cannot be attracted. It is further contended that, since
no offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act has been alleged, the
invocation of Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS is itself misconceived.
15. The submission, though attractive at first blush, cannot
be accepted at this stage of the proceedings. A conjoint reading of
the complaint, the death note and the summary of the charge sheet
would unmistakably disclose the existence of allegations which
require adjudication upon evidence. The material collected during
investigation includes several conversations and exchanges of chats
between accused No.1 and the deceased, all of which cannot be
brushed aside in an exercise under Section 528 of the BNSS. To do
30
so would amount to this Court embarking upon an impermissible
mini-trial while exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
16. The contention that no overt act occurred “soon before
the death” also does not commend acceptance at this juncture. The
expression “soon before death” is not susceptible to a rigid or
straitjacket interpretation. The interpretation of the words ‘soon
before death’ need not retain this Court for long or delve deep into
the matter.
16.1. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
1
KANS RAJ v. STATE OF PUNJAB , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
15. It is further contended on behalf of the
respondents that the statements of the deceased referred to
the instances could not be termed to be cruelty or
harassment by the husband soon before her death. “Soon
before” is a relative term which is required to be considered
under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket
formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This
expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test.
The term “soon before” is not synonymous with the
term “immediately before” and is opposite of the
expression “soon after” as used and understood in
Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These
1
(2000) 5 SCC 207
31
words would imply that the interval should not be too
long between the time of making the statement and
the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which,
as earlier noticed, has to be understood and
determined under the peculiar circumstances of each
case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances
showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the
deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but
normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be
spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment
or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it
shall be deemed to be “soon before death” if any other
intervening circumstance showing the non-existence
of such treatment is not brought on record, before
such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does
not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to
any period. Proximate and live link between the effect
of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
consequential death is required to be proved by the
prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or
harassment based upon such demand and the date of
death should not be too remote in time which, under
the circumstances, be treated as having become stale
enough.”
16.2. The Apex Court, in a later judgment, in the case of
2
SURINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA while again dealing
with Section 304B of the IPC has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
15. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 states
that:
“ 113-B.Presumption as to dowry death .—
When the question is whether a person has committed
2
(2014) 4 SCC 129
32
the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman has been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the court
shall presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.”
16. Section 304-B IPC states that:
“ 304-B.Dowry death .—(1) Where the death of
a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or
occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances
within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that
soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’, and
such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death.”
17. Thus, the words “soon before” appear in
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also in
Section 304-B IPC. For the presumptions contemplated
under these sections to spring into action, it is
necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was
caused soon before the death. The interpretation of
the words “soon before” is, therefore, important. The
question is how “soon before”? This would obviously
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It
relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to
person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental
cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or
emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman.
It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear
ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or
essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her
movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside
world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical
cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to
the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty
and related harassment has a different impact on the
mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as
to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances
33
which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her
memory for a long time. Therefore, “soon before” is a
relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have
fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to
case. This must be kept in mind while examining each
case of dowry death.
18. In this connection we may refer to the judgment
of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC
207: 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court considered the
term “soon before”. The relevant observations are as under:
(SCC pp. 222-23, para 15)
“15. … ‘Soon before’ is a relative term which is
required to be considered under specific circumstances of
each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by
fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the
idea of proximity test. The term ‘soon before’ is not
synonymous with the term ‘immediately before’ and is
opposite of the expression ‘soon after’ as used and
understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence
Act. These words would imply that the interval should not
be too long between the time of making the statement and
the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as
earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under
the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to
dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of
cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to
a particular instance but normally refer to a course of
conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time.
If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown
to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be ‘soon before
death’ if any other intervening circumstance showing the
non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record,
before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It
does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to
any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of
cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential
death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The
demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such
demand and the date of death should not be too remote in
time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having
become stale enough.”
34
Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of
dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such
demand and the date of death. The test of proximity
will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case
and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the
court within the confines of law.”
16.3. Again the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
3
MADHYA PRADESH v. JOGENDRA AND ANOTHER has
interpreted the phrase ‘soon before death’ and has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
9 . The most fundamental constituent for attracting the
provisions of Section 304-B IPC is that the death of the
woman must be a dowry death. The ingredients for making
out an offence under Section 304-B have been reiterated in
several rulings of this Court. Four prerequisites for convicting
an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B
are as follows:
(i) that the death of a woman must have been
caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstance;
(ii) that such a death must have occurred within a
period of seven years of her marriage;
(iii) that the woman must have been subjected to
cruelty or harassment at the hands of her
husband, soon before her death; and
(iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have
been for or related to any demand for dowry.
3
(2022) 5 SCC 401
35
10. As the word “dowry” has been defined in Section 2
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “the Dowry
Act”), the said provision gains significance and is extracted
below:
“ 2. Definition of “dowry” .—In this Act, “dowry”
means any property or valuable security given or agreed
to be given either directly or indirectly:
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other
party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a
marriage or by any other person, to either
party to the marriage or to any other
person;
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection
with the marriage of the said parties, but does not
include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom
the Muslim Personal law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation-I. *
Explanation II.—The expression “valuable
security” has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
11. In a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court
in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Rajinder Singh v. State
of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] ,
Section 2 of the Dowry Act has been split into six distinct
parts for a better understanding of the said provision, which
are as follows : (SCC p. 485, para 8)
“8. A perusal of Section 2 shows that this
definition can be broken into six distinct parts:
(1) Dowry must first consist of any property
or valuable security— the word “any” is a word of
width and would, therefore, include within it
property and valuable security of any kind
whatsoever .
(2) Such property or security can be given or
even agreed to be given. The actual giving of such
property or security is, therefore, not necessary.
36
(3) Such property or security can be given or
agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.
(4) Such giving or agreeing to give can again be
not only by one party to a marriage to the other but also
by the parents of either party or by any other person to
either party to the marriage or to any other person. It
will be noticed that this clause again widens the reach of
the Act insofar as those guilty of committing the offence
of giving or receiving dowry is concerned.
(5) Such giving or agreeing to give can be at any
time. It can be at, before, or at any time after the
marriage. Thus, it can be many years after a marriage is
solemnised.
(6) Such giving or receiving must be in
connection with the marriage of the parties. Obviously,
the expression “in connection with” would in the context
of the social evil sought to be tackled by the Dowry
Prohibition Act mean “in relation with” or “relating to”.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In the light of the above provision that
defines the word “dowry” and takes in its ambit any
kind of property or valuable security, in our opinion,
the High Court fell into an error by holding that the
demand of money for construction of a house cannot
be treated as a dowry demand. In Appasaheb
case [Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721
: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 468] referred to in the impugned
judgment [Jogendra v. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 48
of 2004, decided on 10-9-2008 (MP)] , this Court had held
that a demand for money from the parents of the deceased
woman to purchase manure would not fall within the purview
of “dowry”, thereby strictly interpreting the definition of
dowry. This view has, however, not been subscribed to
in Rajinder Singh case [Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2015) 6 SCC 477: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] wherein it has
been held that the said decision as also the one in Vipin
Jaiswal v. State of A.P. [Vipin Jaiswal v. State of A.P., (2013)
3 SCC 684 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 15] , do not state the law
37
correctly. Noting that the aforesaid decisions were distinct
from four other decisions of this Court viz. Bachni
Devi v. State of Haryana [Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana,
(2011) 4 SCC 427 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 280] , Kulwant
Singh v. State of Punjab [Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2013) 4 SCC 177 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 339] , Surinder
Singh v. State of Haryana [Surinder Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 769]
and Raminder Singh v. State of Punjab [Raminder
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 12 SCC 582 : (2014) 5 SCC
(Cri) 116] , the Court opined that keeping in mind the
fact that Section 304-B was inserted in IPC to combat
the social evil of dowry demand that has reached
alarming proportions, it cannot be argued that in case
of an ambiguity in the language used in the provision,
the same ought to be construed strictly as that would
amount to defeating the very object of the provision.
In other words, the Court leaned in favour of assigning
an expansive meaning to the expression “dowry” and
held thus: (Rajinder Singh case [Rajinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477: (2015) 3
SCC (Cri) 225] , SCC p. 491, para 20)
“20. [ Ed. : Para 20 corrected vide Official
Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./16/2015 dated 6-4-2015.]
Given that the statute with which we are dealing must
be given a fair, pragmatic, and common sense
interpretation so as to fulfil the object sought to be
achieved by Parliament, we feel that the judgment
in Appasaheb case [Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) 9 SCC 721 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 468] followed by
the judgment of Vipin Jaiswal [Vipin Jaiswal v. State of
A.P., (2013) 3 SCC 684 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 15] do not
state the law correctly. We, therefore, declare that
any money or property or valuable security
demanded by any of the persons mentioned in
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at or
before or at any time after the marriage which is
reasonably connected to the death of a married
woman, would necessarily be in connection with
or in relation to the marriage unless, the facts of a
given case clearly and unequivocally point
otherwise. ”
(emphasis supplied)
38
13. The Latin maxim “Ut res magis valeat quam
pereat” i.e. a liberal construction should be put up on
written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible,
and carry into effect, the intention of the parties, sums
it up. Interpretation of a provision of law that will
defeat the very intention of the legislature must be
shunned in favour of an interpretation that will
promote the object sought to be achieved through the
legislation meant to uproot a social evil like dowry
demand. In this context, the word “dowry” ought to be
ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass
any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of
a property or a valuable security of any nature. When
dealing with cases under Section 304-B IPC, a
provision legislated to act as a deterrent in the society
and curb the heinous crime of dowry demands, the
shift in the approach of the courts ought to be from
strict to liberal, from constricted to dilated. Any rigid
meaning would tend to bring to naught, the real object
of the provision. Therefore, a push in the right
direction is required to accomplish the task of
eradicating this evil which has become deeply
entrenched in our society.
14. In the facts of the instant case, we are of the
opinion that the trial court has correctly interpreted the
demand for money raised by the respondents on the
deceased for construction of a house as falling within the
definition of the word “dowry”. The submission made by the
learned counsel for the respondents that the deceased was
also a party to such a demand as she had on her own asked
her mother and maternal uncle to contribute to the
construction of the house, must be understood in the correct
perspective. It cannot be lost sight of that the respondents
had been constantly tormenting the deceased and asking her
to approach her family members for money to build a house
and it was only on their persistence and insistence that she
was compelled to ask them to contribute some amount for
constructing a house. The Court must be sensitive to the
social milieu from which the parties hail. The fact that the
marriage of the deceased and Respondent 1 was conducted
in a community marriage organisation where some couples
39
would have tied the knot goes to show that the parties were
financially not so well off. This position is also borne out from
the deposition of PW 1 who had stated that he used to bear
the expenses of the couple. Before the marriage of the
deceased also, PW 1 had stated that he used to bear her
expenses and that of her mother and brother (his sister and
nephew) as her father had abandoned them. In this
background, the High Court fell in an error in drawing an
inference that since the deceased had herself joined her
husband and father-in-law, the respondents herein and
asked her mother or uncle to contribute money to construct
a house, such demand cannot be treated as a “dowry
demand”. On the contrary, the evidence brought on record
shows that the deceased was pressurised to make such a
request for money to her mother and uncle. It was not a
case of complicity but a case of sheer helplessness faced by
the deceased in such adverse circumstances.
15. Now, coming to the second point urged by the
learned counsel for the State that the High Court has
overlooked the fact that Geeta Bai had been subjected to
cruelty/harassment at the hands of the respondents soon
before her death, which submission is strictly contested by
the learned counsel for the respondents, we may note that
the meaning of the expression “soon before her death” has
been discussed threadbare in several judgments.
In SurinderSingh [Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana,
(2014) 4 SCC 129 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 769] , while relying
on the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872
(for short “the Evidence Act”) and Section 304-B IPC, where
the words “soon before her death” find mention, the
following pertinent observations have been made : (SCC pp.
137-39, paras 17-18)
“17. Thus, the words “soon before” appear
in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and
also in Section 304-B IPC. For the presumptions
contemplated under these sections to spring into
action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or
harassment was caused soon before the death.
The interpretation of the words “soon before” is,
therefore, important. The question is how “soon
before”? This would obviously depend on the facts
40
and circumstances of each case . The cruelty or
harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the
mindset of people which varies from person to person.
Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental
cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or
emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a
woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her
near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic
resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting
restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her
to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and
not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating
or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman.
Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment
has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some
instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact
on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity
may remain, etched in her memory for a long
time. Therefore, “soon before” is a relative term.
In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed
formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to
case. This must be kept in mind while examining
each case of dowry death .
18. In this connection we may refer to the
judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of
Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207:
2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court considered the
term “soon before”. The relevant observations are as
under: (SCC pp. 222-23, para 15)
‘15. … “Soon before” is a relative term which
is required to be considered under specific
circumstances of each case and no straitjacket
formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit.
This expression is pregnant with the idea of
proximity test. The term “soon before” is not
synonymous with the term “immediately before”
and is opposite of the expression “soon after” as
used and understood in Section 114, Illustration
(a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that
the interval should not be too long between the time of
making the statement and the death. It contemplates
the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be
understood and determined under the peculiar
circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry
41
deaths, the circumstances showing the existence
of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not
restricted to a particular instance but normally
refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be
spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or
harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have
persisted, it shall be deemed to be “soon before
death” if any other intervening circumstance
showing the non-existence of such treatment is
not brought on record, before such alleged
treatment and the date of death . It does not,
however, mean that such time can be stretched to any
period. Proximate and live link between the effect of
cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential
death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The
demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon
such demand and the date of death should not be too
remote in time which, under the circumstances, be
treated as having become stale enough.’
Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry,
cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the
date of death. The test of proximity will have to be applied.
But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and
sensitive approach of the court within the confines of law.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. In Rajinder Singh [Rajinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] , falling
back on the rulings in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans
Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
935] , Dinesh v. State of Haryana [Dinesh v. State of
Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC 532 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 839]
and Sher Singh v. State of Haryana [Sher Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 422] , it
has been emphasised that “soon before” is not synonymous
to “immediately before” and the following observations have
been made : (Rajinder Singh case [Rajinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] , SCC
p. 493, para 24)
42
“24. We endorse what has been said by
these two decisions. Days or months are not what
is to be seen. What must be borne in mind is that
the word “soon” does not mean “immediate”. A fair
and pragmatic construction keeping in mind the great
social evil that has led to the enactment of Section 304-
B would make it clear that the expression is a relative
expression. Time-lags may differ from case to case.
All that is necessary is that the demand for dowry
should not be stale but should be the continuing
cause for the death of the married woman under
Section 304-B. ”
The Apex Court, in the judgments referred to supra , has
consistently held that the phrase is a relative expression, the import
of which must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. “Soon before death” is not synonymous with
“immediately before death.” The proximity test is to be
evaluated not with mathematical precision, but with
pragmatic realism . The judgment of the Apex Court in
SURINDER SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA reiterates that the
statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act
operates against the accused unless rebutted by cogent evidence.
43
17. In the light of the law declared by the Apex Court,
particularly in cases arising under Sections 304B and 498A of the
IPC, which now find their corresponding reflection in Sections 80
and 85 of the BNS, this Court is of the considered view that the
present matter does not warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the BNSS, to obliterate the proceedings at the
threshold. The allegations, the death note, the witness statements,
and the surrounding circumstances cumulatively disclose issues
which can only be adjudicated upon a full-fledged trial.
Consequently, I decline to exercise jurisdiction to quash the
proceedings insofar as accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are concerned.
18. Insofar as accused Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, they are
distant relatives of accused No.1. What kind of relation did accused
no.1 have with accused nos.5 and 6 is nowhere found in the entire
petition nor in the complaint and the charge sheet. Therefore,
accused nos.5 and 6 who only went along with accused nos.2, 3
and 4 to bring about or seek an explanation from the hands of the
daughter of the de-facto complainant cannot be drawn into the web
of proceedings.
44
19. The word ‘relative’ that is found in Section 304B or 498A
of the IPC is, relative by blood, marriage or adoption and only a
relative of the husband can be proceeded against for the aforesaid
offences. The interpretation of the word ‘relative’ need not detain
this Court for long. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
4
PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
8. Admittedly, the respondent is not the husband of the
woman who died and, therefore, the question which falls for
determination is as to whether he comes within the ambit of
“any relative of her husband”. The expression “relative” has not
been defined in IPC. The provision with which we are concerned
is a penal provision which deserves strict construction. It is well
settled that when the words of a statute are not defined, it has
to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense. For
this purpose, it shall be permissible to refer to dictionaries to
find out the general sense in which the word is understood in
common parlance. In Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law
Lexicon (Vol. 4, 3rd Edn.), the word “relative” means any
person related by blood, marriage or adoption. A large
number of dictionaries give this word “relative”, in
context, the same meaning.
9. It is relevant here to state that the expression
“relative of the husband” has been used in Section 498-A
IPC. While interpreting the said expression, this Court in
U. Suvetha v. State [(2009) 6 SCC 757 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Cri) 36] held it to mean a person related by blood,
marriage or adoption. The relevant portion of the
judgment reads as follows: (SCC p. 762, para 10)
4
(2014) 9 SCC 632
45
“ 10 . In the absence of any statutory
definition, the term ‘relative’ must be assigned a
meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it
would include father, mother, husband or wife,
son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece,
grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the
spouse of any person. The meaning of the word
‘relative’ would depend upon the nature of the
statute. It principally includes a person related by
blood, marriage or adoption.”
10. The expression “relative of the husband”
further came up for consideration in Vijeta Gajra v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 11 SCC 618 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
223] and while approving the decision of this Court in U.
Suvetha [(2009) 6 SCC 757 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 36] , it
was held that the word relative would be limited only to
the blood relations or the relations by marriage. It is
appropriate to reproduce the following passage from the
said judgment: ( Vijeta Gajra case [(2010) 11 SCC 618 :
(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 223] , SCC p. 621, para 12)
“ 12 . Relying on the dictionary meaning of
the word ‘relative’ and further relying on P.
Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (Vol. 4,
3rd Edn.), the Court went on to hold that Section
498-A IPC being a penal provision would deserve
strict construction and unless a contextual
meaning is required to be given to the statute, the
said statute has to be construed strictly. On that
behalf the Court relied on the judgment in T.
Ashok Pai v. CIT [(2007) 7 SCC 162] . A reference
was made to the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma
v. State of M.P. [(2007) 15 SCC 369 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 729] After quoting from various decisions of
this Court, it was held that reference to the word
‘relative’ in Section 498-A IPC would be limited
only to the blood relations or the relations by
marriage.”
11. It is a well-known rule of construction that when the
legislature uses same words in different parts of the statute, the
presumption is that those words have been used in the same
sense, unless displaced by the context. We do not find
anything in context to deviate from the general rule of
46
interpretation. Hence, we have no manner of doubt that
the word “relative of the husband” in Section 304-B IPC
would mean such persons, who are related by blood,
marriage or adoption. When we apply this principle the
respondent herein is not related to the husband of the
deceased either by blood or marriage or adoption . Hence,
in our opinion, the High Court did not err in passing the
impugned order [ Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab , (2006) 1 RCR
(Cri) 562 (P&H)] . We hasten to add that a person, not a
relative of the husband, may not be prosecuted for the offence
under Section 304-B IPC but this does not mean that such a
person cannot be prosecuted for any other offence viz. Section
306 IPC, in case the allegations constitute offence other than
Section 304-B IPC.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The Apex Court holds that a person who is not a relative of the
husband in terms of the definition as found in Section 304B or 498A
of the IPC, which is now 80 and 85 of the BNS, cannot be
proceeded against in a case of dowry death. Therefore, permitting
proceedings against accused nos.5 and 6 who had no role to play in
the lives of accused no.1 to 4 or the deceased or the complainant,
permitting proceedings against accused nos.5 and 6 would become
an abuse of the process of the law. Insofar as the allegations
against the father of the deceased are concerned, it is always open
to the prosecution to draw him as an accused, if the evidence so
warrants, strictly in consonance with law.
47
20. Insofar as the other accused are concerned, this Court is
of the opinion that the proceedings cannot be quashed against
them. However, accused nos.1 to 4 are permitted to avail of such
remedy as is available in law and if availed of, the observations
made in the course of the order, will not come in the way, bind or
influence the concerned Court in answering any such remedy that
is availed of by the said accused Nos.1 to 4 and answer the same
on the merit of the matter.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.18828 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(ii) Writ Petition No.31907 of 2025 is allowed in part.
(iii) The petition, insofar as accused nos.1 to 4, stands
dismissed, leaving open to the said accused to avail of
such remedy as is available in law, and if availed of, the
concerned Court would not be influenced or bound by
the observations made in the course of this order.
48
(iv) The impugned proceedings qua accused nos.5 and 6
stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:SS