NANJAPPA SHETTY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 590 OF 2019 (A)

BETWEEN:

NANJAPPA SHETTY
S/O LATE NINGAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O LAKSHMI KUTEERA
DADADAHALLI ROAD
ALURU TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)







AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SURATHKAL P.S.
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2.
SRI MANJUNATH
S/O KRISHNAIAH J.J.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT D.NO.22/2-7
C/O SMT. VIJAYA
KAYARBETTU MANE
SRINIVASA NAGAR
MUNCHURU, SURATHKAL VILLAGE
MANGALURU.

3. SRI KRISHNAIAH G.J.
@ KRISHNAPPA




Digitally signed
by G
SHREERAKSHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


S/O JAVARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

4. SMT. V. VARALAKSHMI
W/O KRISHNAIAH J.J.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE
TH
R/AT D.NO.409 LIG, 27 ROAD
CHENNAPATTANA, KHB LAYOUT
OPP: HASSAN NEW BUS STAND
HASSAN DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI UMESH P.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4
(VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.09.2026,
APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE))

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.372 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN S.C.NO.75/2015
DATED 31.07.2017, PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE
O/P/U/S 498-A, 304-B, 306 IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND
ETC.,
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 07.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

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

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

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of acquittal dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge Dakshina Kannada

- 3 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


Mangaluru in Sessions Case No.75/2015 whereby the
respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges framed
against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under.
The appellant is the father of the deceased Smt.
Nayana. The marriage of the deceased with accused No.1
was solemnised on 05/06.08.2012 at S.R.S. Kalyana
Mantapa. It is alleged that at the time of marriage a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- and 250 grams of gold ornaments were given
as dowry. After the marriage the accused allegedly started
harassing the deceased. It is further alleged that the in-laws
used to taunt that if they had married their son to some
other girl they would have received Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry
and that accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards his Ph.D. course of which a sum of Rs.50,000/- was
paid by the appellant.
3. On 23.05.2014 the deceased is stated to have
telephoned the appellant in the morning complaining of

- 4 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


torture by accused No.1. Later the same day she was found
dead by hanging in the rented premises at Munchuru
Surathkal. The hospital records indicate that she expired at
about 11:55 a.m. On the basis of the complaint lodged by
the appellant Crime No.175/2014 was registered for the
offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC. After
investigation charge-sheet was filed for the offences under
Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Additional charge under Section 306 of the IPC was framed
during the trial. The accused denied the charges and claimed
to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses (P.W.1 to
P.W.18) and marked 38 documents (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38). The
accused examined themselves under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and
marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.39.
5. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the
entire oral and documentary evidence answered all the
points framed for consideration in the negative and acquitted
the accused by the impugned judgment.

- 5 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


6. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Kaleemullah
Shariff submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has
committed an error in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.5 regarding demand and acceptance of dowry and the
subsequent harassment. It is contended that the death
having occurred within seven years of marriage under
unnatural circumstances the presumptions under Sections
113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act stood attracted
and the accused failed to rebut the same. The hospital
records regarding the time of death and the evidence of the
doctor were not properly appreciated. The acquittal is
therefore illegal and deserves to be set aside.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae Sri Umesh P B for the
accused supported the judgment of acquittal and submitted
that the first complaint (Ex.P.2) did not contain any
allegation of demand of dowry. The detailed allegations
appeared only in the further complaint (Ex.P.4) filed after
consultation with an NGO. There is no reliable evidence of
payment of the alleged dowry. The evidence of the
neighbours and house owners indicates that the relations
between the couple were cordial. The medical records show

- 6 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


that the deceased was under treatment for anxiety related to
conception. The view taken by the Sessions Court is a
possible and reasonable view based on proper appreciation
of evidence and does not call for interference.
8. Heard the learned counsels for the appellant as well
as for the respondents. We have carefully perused the entire
evidence on record and the impugned judgment.
9. It is well settled law that in an appeal against
acquittal the High Court has jurisdiction to re-appreciate the
evidence. However, the interference is warranted only if the
findings of the Sessions Court are perverse, unreasonable or
based on non-consideration of material evidence. Where two
views are possible the view which favours the accused and
has been taken by the Sessions Court should not ordinarily
be disturbed. The presumption of innocence is further
strengthened by an order of acquittal as held in the
Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandrappa v.
State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 and Murugesan
v. State, (2012) 10 SCC 383.

- 7 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


10. On a careful re-appreciation of the evidence the
following aspects emerge:
(i) The first complaint (Ex.P.2) lodged by P.W.1 on the
date of the incident makes no mention whatsoever of any
demand or acceptance of dowry. The detailed allegations
regarding demand of Rs.3,00,000/- and 300 grams of gold
(later reduced to Rs.2,50,000/- and 250 grams) the
comparative taunt that if the accused had married elsewhere
they would have received Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry and the
demand of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the Ph.D. course appear
only in the further complaint (Ex.P.4) dated 29.05.2014 after
the appellant is stated to have consulted an NGO advocate.
The Sessions Court has rightly treated the further complaint
as an improvement and afterthought.
(ii) There is no reliable documentary evidence to prove
the actual payment of the alleged dowry amount. The bills
produced (Ex.P.14) claiming marriage expenses of over
Rs.16 lakhs were largely handwritten lacked supporting
receipts or related to periods prior to the marriage. P.W.1
admitted that his annual income was only Rs.35,000/- and
that he had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from accused No.2

- 8 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


which remained unpaid. The bank records produced by the
defence show that accused No.1 himself had withdrawn
money for his Ph.D. fees.
(iii) The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding specific
acts of cruelty is vague and general. Both witnesses
admitted that the overall relationship between the families
was cordial and that any differences were resolved by mutual
discussion. Photographs marked by the defence depict the
couple leading a happy married life, attending functions,
celebrating the birthday of the deceased, performing
Sathyanarayana Pooja after she cleared the bank
examination and going on trips.
(iv) The neighbours (P.W.6 and P.W.7) and the house
owners (P.W.8 and P.W.9) though treated as hostile
consistently stated that the relationship between accused
No.1 and the deceased appeared cordial. On a careful re-
examination of their evidence it is noticed that they have not
specifically deposed in clear terms that the facial injuries
found on the deceased were caused while removing the body
from the suspension. P.W.6 and P.W.7 have spoken about
the process of cutting the veil and bringing down the body

- 9 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


and that the body came into contact with the table. However
their testimony does not contain a categorical assertion
attributing the facial abrasions exclusively to the act of
removal of dead body. At the same time having regard to the
surrounding circumstances including the small dimension of
the injuries, the absence of any other mark of violence, the
evidence of cordial relations and the overall sequence of
events, it is not possible to conclude that the said injuries
were caused by the accused. The Sessions Court has
carefully weighed this aspect and has not found the medical
evidence to be of such a nature as to assist the prosecution
in establishing physical assault by the accused.
(v) The medical evidence requires detailed
consideration. P.W.11 Dr. Francis N.P. Monteiro conducted
the post-mortem examination and issued the post-mortem
report (Ex.P.28). The post-mortem report records three
external injuries namely (1) reddish abrasion on the right
upper eyelid in its inner half measuring 1 cm × 0.5 cm
exposing the reddish base (2) reddish abrasion on the right
side of the forehead just above the mid-point of the right
eyebrow measuring 0.6 cm × 0.4 cm and (3) ligature mark

- 10 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


over the neck. The doctor opined that injuries Nos.1 to 3 are
ante-mortem in nature and caused by blunt force impact and
that the cause of death is due to pressure over the neck
structures resulting from hanging. The final opinion (Ex.P.30)
and the clarification (Ex.P.31) further state that the injuries
are fresh (less than 12 hours old at the time of death) and
that the possibility of the blunt force impact being caused by
assault could not be ruled out. The doctor also clarified that
the material similar to the piece of chudidar veil produced for
examination if used as a material of suspension could cause
the injuries on the neck and had enough strength to bear the
weight of the deceased. In his cross-examination P.W.11
stated that injuries Nos.1 and 2 could possibly be caused by
nail scratch or twig of a plant but the possibility of they being
caused while removing the suspension is less. He also
volunteered that if there is a fall during the release of the
body the projecting parts of the face such as the nose
forehead and chin are commonly injured but the injuries of
the dimension shown in the post-mortem report are not of
that nature. The Sessions Court after considering the entire
medical evidence including the clarification (Ex.P.31) held

- 11 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


that the injuries are very small in nature and that there is no
firm opinion that the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem
report could not be caused while removing the suspension.
The Sessions Court further observed that in the absence of
cogent and clear evidence regarding the opinion on the
injuries the evidence of P.W.11 is of no assistance to the
case of the prosecution. This appreciation of the medical
evidence cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.
(vi) The medical records produced by the defence
indicate that the deceased was under treatment for anxiety
related to her inability to conceive and was prescribed
medication for the same. This provides a plausible
alternative explanation for the suicide. The defence has also
placed on record photographs depicting the couple leading a
normal married life. These surrounding circumstances further
weaken the prosecution case of continuous harassment
culminating in the unnatural death.
11. In view of the above discussion the foundational
facts necessary to attract the presumptions under Sections
113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act have not been
established. It is well settled that the presumption under Sec.

- 12 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


113-B of the Act is not automatic. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Shoor Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 2
SCC 815 has clarified that the presumption under Section
113-B is not in respect of the act of cruelty or harassment in
connection with any demand for dowry. Such presumption
arises only after the prosecution proves by ordinary rules of
evidence and beyond reasonable doubt all the essential
ingredients of “dowry death” under Sec. 304-B of the IPC
namely (i) death of the woman by burns or bodily injury or
otherwise than under normal circumstances (ii) such death
occurring within seven years of marriage (iii) soon before her
death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband and (iv) such cruelty
or harassment was in connection with any demand for dowry.
Only upon proof of these foundational facts does the
presumption operate that the accused caused the dowry
death. The apex court further held that mere admissibility of
statements of close relatives regarding what the deceased
told them does not automatically render such evidence
reliable. The same must still be evaluated against the
surrounding circumstances. In the present case

- 13 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of any
demand for dowry or cruelty/harassment soon before the
death in connection with such demand. Consequently the
presumptions under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the
Evidence Act are not attracted. The learned Sessions Judge
has correctly appreciated this legal position and declined to
draw the statutory presumptions.
12. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the
entire evidence in detail, noted the contradictions and
improvements in the testimony of the interested witnesses
carefully analysed the medical evidence including the post-
mortem report, the final opinion and the clarification and has
given cogent reasons for disbelieving the prosecution version
on the vital aspects of demand of dowry and cruelty. The
view taken by the Sessions Court is a possible and
reasonable view. No perversity or illegality is made out which
would warrant interference in this appeal against acquittal.
13. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is devoid of
merits and liable to be dismissed.

- 14 -
CRL.A No. 590 of 2019


ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.07.2017
passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in S.C. No.75/2015
is confirmed.
(iii) The bail bonds if any executed by the respondents-
accused shall stand discharged.
(iv) This Court places on record the able services rendered by
Sri.Umesh.P.B, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on
behalf of respondents 2 to 4. The Registry is directed to
pay the maximum fee/honorarium that is permissible
under the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority
Regulations, 1997, to the learned Amicus Curiae
Sri.Umesh.P.B.

Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE


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



BNV