SMT. BHAGYAMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2025

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1.
SMT. BHAGYAMA
LATE N JAYASHANKAR
AGED 52 YEARS
NO. 38, 3RD CROSS, SWIMMING POOL
EXTENSION, MALLESHWARAM
BANGLORE - 560003
…PETITIONER







(BY SMT. AMULYA K N.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE -1

2. B.R.SATHISH KUMAR
S/O RAMACHANDRA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BHIRAMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
THORADEVANDAHALLI POST,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563126





Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025



NOW AT APARTMENT G10,
AMIGO CASA APARTMENT,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, VIJINAPURA VILLAGE,
KR PURAM, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560016
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.ABHILASH KUMAR.M.N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.M.R.NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438
R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DIRECTING
THE TRIAL COURT TO FRAME ADDITIONAL CHARGE, FOR AN
OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC, THE PETITIONER (VICTIM AS
DEFINED U/S 2(w)(a) OF THE CR.P.C., IN THE ABOVE CASE
MOST HUMBLY PRAYS THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN SC.NO.1868/2018
(K.R.PURAM POLICE vs SATHISH) PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE 45th ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A),304(B) OF IPC,
U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.


Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025



ORAL ORDER
This is the revision petition filed by the de-facto
complainant under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) praying for setting
aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2025 on an
application filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C., in SC No.
1868/2018 on the file of the XLV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-46) (in short 'the
trial court').

2. The parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before the trial Court, for the sake of
convenience and clarity.

3. The charge-sheet is filed against the accused
alleging the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and
304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'the IPC'),
read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (in short, 'the D.P. Act'). After filing the charge-
sheet, cognizance was taken, and the accused is on bail.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025




4. The charges were framed on 10.11.2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of
the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

5. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant filed an
application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. seeking
amendment of the charge by including the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

6. After hearing, the said application was dismissed,
which is under challenge in the present revision petition.

7. Initially, the de-facto complainant lodged the
complaint against the accused, alleging the unlawful
demand for dowry and harassment in connection with the
said demand and without tolerating the said harassment,
her daughter committed the suicide.

8. Based on the said complaint, the Investigating
Officer conducted an investigation and filed the charge-
sheet for the aforesaid offences.

9. It is the contention of the complainant that, as
per the P.M. report, there are contusion injuries on the left
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025



and right parietal region, the left occipital region of the
deceased. Further, there is an external contusion injury on
her right thigh. It is stated that all these injuries were
ante-mortem in nature. Hence, the Investigating Officer
ought to have obtained the doctor's opinion regarding
these injuries. However, the Investigating Officer has not
obtained any such opinion. The P.M. report establishes
that there were injuries on the head region. Hence, there
is every possibility that the accused might have pushed
the deceased against the wall, resulting in the said
injuries, which were fatal in nature. Hence, the charge
ought to have been framed for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC also. However, the trial Court
refused to frame the charge for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC.

10. The learned HCGP, Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah,
appearing for respondent No.1/State, would submit that,
upon proper investigation, the Investigating Officer has
filed the charge-sheet, wherein the ingredients of the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025



offence under Section 302 of the IPC was not made out.
Hence, the charge framed by the trial Court is proper and
requires no interference.

11. The learned counsel for respondent
No.2/accused, Sri Abhilash Kumar, would submit that the
charge has to be framed based on the available materials
and that the said materials do not disclose the commission
of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Even the P.M.
report, prima facie , does not disclose murder. Hence, the
trial Court has assigned appropriate reasons for rejecting
the application filed under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C.,
which requires no interference. He would further submit
that as per the averments in the complaint and the
charge-sheet, the accused and CW.7 broke open the door
and immediately shifted the deceased to the hospital,
under the impression that she was still alive. However, she
was declared dead at the hospital.

12. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the charge-sheet, its annexures and the finding of the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025



Court on IA filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., the point
that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the revision petitioner establishes
that the finding of the trial Court in rejecting the
application under Section 216 Cr.P.C., is erroneous,
capricious and not in accordance with law?"


13. The finding of this Court on above point is in
'Negative' for the following:
REASONS

14. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very
limited. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kuntegowda v/s Thurubaiah in Criminal Appeal
No.3654/2026, (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.2247 of 2024 dated 04.08.2026
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485 . In the aforesaid
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.7.1.
to 7.3 has discussed the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court, which reads as follows:
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025



" 7.3. The contours for exercise of revisional
jurisdiction has been well settled by the judicial
dicta of this Court wherein time and again it has
been observed that the High Court shall not
interfere with the orders of the lower court
unless:
i. The order or finding of the lower court
is perverse, grossly erroneous, glaringly
unreasonable or wholly unreliable or
untenable in law.
ii. The lower court has passed the
impugned order after considering an
immaterial or irrelevant material or no
material at all.
iii. There is a non-consideration of any
relevant material or the judicial
discretion has been exercised arbitrarily
or capriciously."

15. Thus, only if the order of the trial Court is
perverse or grossly erroneous, or grossly unreasonable, or
wholly unreliable, or wholly untenable, or the trial Court
considered an immaterial or irrelevant, material or no
material or not at all relevant material or judicial discretion
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025



has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously, the
revisional Court can interfere with such judgment.

16. The charge-sheet, its annexures and the
averments in the complaint prima facie reveal that the
deceased was unable to tolerate the harassment and
cruelty inflicted by her husband, she has committed the
suicide. It is further stated in the complaint that the
deceased had stated that the said day would be her final
day and that her son should be looked after well.

17. In the P.M. report, it is stated that the deceased
had committed suicide by hanging. The history furnished
was that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging.
The ligature material, namely, a bed sheet, was produced
before the doctor, and the ligature mark measured 24 cm
x 1.5 cm. There was an internal injury on the scalp, i.e.,
contusions over the right and left parietal regions and the
left occipital region. There was also one external injury on
the dead body, i.e., on the outer aspect of the right thigh.
All the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025



doctor opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a
result of hanging.

18. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
vehemently submits that the Investigating Officer has not
obtained the doctor's opinion regarding the internal and
external injuries. Thus, the said injuries on the dead body
prima facie reveal the commission of the offence under
Section 302 of the IPC. Hence, she prays for allowing the
application filed under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. and
framing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC.

19. There is a clear opinion of the doctor that the
death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Under
these circumstances, prima facie , there is no material to
conclude that the death was homicidal and not suicidal.

20. If the de-facto complainant is able to establish,
through the evidence of the doctor, that the death might
also have been caused by murder, it is always open to the
trial Court to amend the charges at any stage of the
proceedings before pronouncing judgment. Hence, at this
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61177
CRL.RP No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010541612025



stage, the application is pre-mature in nature. If the de-
facto complainant is able to establish any such material
through the evidence, it is open to her to file an
appropriate application seeking reconsideration of the
framing of the charge, including under Section 302 of the
IPC.

21. With these observations this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
However, liberty is reserved to the de-facto
complainant to file an appropriate application, if
necessary, after completion of the evidence of the material
witnesses.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE

SPV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13