SRI CHANDRA REDDY vs SMT SULOCHANAMMA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020






IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6949 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. CHANDRA REDDY
S/O MUNIRAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

2. SRI ASHOK REDDY
S/O MUNIRAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

3. SRI SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O MUNIRAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

4. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O MUNIRAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

(ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
K.B. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
NARASAPURA HOBLI,
TALUK AND DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 133.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE)











Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020





AND:

1. SMT. SULOCHANAMMA
W/O NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O DODDERI KAMMASANDRA HOBLI
BANGARAPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VEMGAL POLICE STATION,
VEMGAL TALUK AND DISTRICT
KOLAR
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 002.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA, M., HCGP FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
24.01.2020 AND BY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION UNDER
SECTION 216 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN
S.C.NO.70/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
SECOND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020




ORAL ORDER


Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

2. The prayer is sought for in the petition to set aside
the order dated 24.01.2020 of the Trial Court by dismissing the
application filed under Section 216 of Cr.PC in S.C.No.70/2017
pending on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar.

3. The prosecution has filed an application under
Section 216 of Cr.PC to frame charges for the offence
punishable under Section 302, 304(B) and 201 r/w Section 34
of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The
petitioners herein has filed objection to the said application and
prayed for dismissal of the same. The trial Court having
considered the application of alteration of charge and also the
objections allowed the application in entirety on 24.01.2020.
Hence, the present petition is filed before this Court questioning
the same.

4. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the petitioners is that the trial Court committed an error in

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020




allowing the application for alteration of charge. The main
contention of the counsel that though PW1 and PW2 are
examined, their evidence cannot be considered in the absence
of any particular statement with regard to Section 302 as well
as Section 304B. The trial Court has failed to see that none of
the ingredients of the offence under Section 302 or 304B of the
Indian Penal Code are disclosed in the charge sheet or in the
evidence given before the trial Court by the witnesses- PW1
and 2. So also the trial Court has not considered the objections
filed by the petitioners while considering the application. The
counsel also submits that only chief examination of PW1 and
PW2 are led and yet to cross-examine those witnesses.

5. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the
observations made by the trial Court while allowing the
application. Particularly, in the last paragraph, the trial Court
comes to the conclusion that death was taken place within 4
years of the marriage. Though it is not mentioned in the
investigation report but taken note of the statements made
before the Investigation Officer at the time of conducting the
inquest and comes to the conclusion that death was occurred

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020




within 7 years of the marriage. However, as the materials of
the charge sheet does not disclose this aspect and the contents
of the charge sheet paper discloses these contents, it is just
unnecessary to alter the charges.

6. The counsel would vehemently contend that in
order to invoke all the offences nothing is discussed except
discussing only to invoke Section 304B of IPC and no finding is
given in respect of even Section 304(B) as well as 302 is
concerned, except coming to the conclusion that death was
taken place within 4 years of marriage. Hence, seeks for
allowing of the petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that it has emerged
during the course of investigation that death was taken place
within 7 years of marriage. The counsel would contend that
though it is filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section
306, but the fact is that body was disposed of by shifting the
same from the house in a canal and body was also found after
4 days of the incident of alleged suicide. The counsel also
vehemently contend that the shifting of the body was witnessed

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020




by the other villagers and their statement was also recorded
and trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the
application. The counsel would contend that in respect of
Section 304(B) of IPC is concerned, there is material in the
statement of witnesses and the same is also not found when
they pointed out. But in the statement of some of the witnesses
it is stated that she was subjected to the harassment. But the
same is found in the statement of witnesses and the same also
to be appreciated during the course of consideration of offence
under Section 304B.

8. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioner and also the counsel appearing to the respondents,
the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court is
whether the trial Court committed an error in allowing the
application filed under Section 216 in its entirety without any
discussion? and whether it requires interference?

9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioners and also the counsel appearing to the respondents,
admittedly charge was framed only for the offence punishable
under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and so also offence

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020




under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The police also after
conducting the investigation have also not invoked the offence
punishable under Section 304(B) as well as Section 302 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The counsel
would vehemently contend that the trial Court comes to the
conclusion that death was taken place within 7 years and hence
304(B) is invoked and the same is erroneous.

10. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that
there is no allegation that she was subjected to cruelty for the
dowry and there is no ingredients of dowry death. The counsel
also contended that when the application was filed for invoking
Section 302 of IPC, no such material is placed on record.
Perusal of the Post mortem report would indicate that it is a
case of suicide. Having considered the PM report also, there is a
ligature mark found on the neck. But doctor has not been
examined. When the doctor has not been examined and no
discussion by the trial Court while altering the charge for the
offence under Section 302, there cannot be allowing the
application for invoking Section 302.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020




11. It has to be noted that witnesses PW1 and PW2
have been examined but not cross-examined. But in the
evidence, they deposed with regard to the dowry demand and
payment of money. Though the trial Court comes to the
conclusion that death was taken place within 7 years, but
whether it is on account of dowry death is a matter of trial and
yet to cross-examine the PW1 and PW2. When the evidence
recorded and the same has to be subjected to veracity of the
evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding dowry is concerned. Hence
I do not find any force in the contention of the counsel with
regard to invoking of Section 304(B) is concerned, prima facie
death was taken place within 7 years and whether the PW1 and
PW2 to withstand the cross-examination regarding dowry is
concerned and the same is subject to the consideration of
Section 304(B) by the trial Court, having considered the
material and the same has to be appreciated on merits.

12. In respect of Section 302 of IPC is concerned, this
Court already comes to the conclusion that it is a case of
homicide. There is no prima facie material to proceed under
Section 302 of IPC. Under the circumstances, the trial Court

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020




ought not to have allowed the application for alteration of
charge for the offence of Section 302. The counsel appearing
for the petitioner not seriously dispute with regard to invoking
of Section 304(B). Hence, order of the trial Court requires to be
interfered only in respect of Section 302 is concerned.

13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following;
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Application filed for alteration of charge under
Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside. The same is also
subject to the examination of the medical evidence of the
doctor who has been cited as CW30. So also the finding in
respect of Section 304(B) is subject to the evidence to be
given before the trial Court and the trial Court has to
appreciate the same while considering the matter on
merits. If medical evidence supports the present case
under Section 302 of IPC, then the Trial Court shall
consider the same by giving an opportunity to defence

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59289
CRL.P No. 6949 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010142682020




and then can alter the charge and the said liberty is given
to Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.



Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE






RU
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30