Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Jagannatha Nayak on 10 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 671 OF 2019
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PSI,
SULLIA POLICE STATION,
SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.
...PETITIONER
(BY M. R. PATIL, HCGP.)
AND:
1. JAGANNATHA NAYAK,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
AGED 58 YEARS,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
S/O. N. ACHUTHA NAYAK,
R/AT NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE,
SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K.-571237.
2. N. MADHAVA NAYAK
AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. ACHUTHA NAYAK,
R/AT NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE,
SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNANDA-571237.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. SMT. MAMATHA @ JAYALAKSHMI,
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O. N. MADHAVA NAYAK,
R/AT NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE,
SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K.-571237.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAKSHA BHAGAVAN, ADV. FOR
M/S. P. P. HEGDE ASSTS.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
14.12.2018, IN CRL.A.NO.5031/2017,PASSED BY THE LEARNED
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR,D.K., AND THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.658/2008 ON 20.01.2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SULLIA, D.K
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 498A,323,AND 342 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3
AND 4 OF THE D.P ACT AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE AFORESAID
OFFENCES P/U/S 498A,323,AND 342 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE D.P ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
State has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition against
the judgment of acquittal dated 20th January 2017 passed in CC
No.658 of 2008 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sullia, Dakshina
Kannada (for short referred to as the ‘trial Court’) which is
confirmed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru sitting at Puttur in Criminal
Appeal No.5031 of 2017 dated in 14th December, 2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that
Police Sub-Inspector of Subrahmanya Police Station filed
charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 342 read with Section 34 Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is alleged by the prosecution that PW1-Smt. Savitha Nayak is
the wife of accused No.1 Jagadeih Nayak. He marked PW1 in
the year 1999 as per Hindu customs and traditions and have
begotten a girl child which is aged 7 years. Accused No.2 & 3
are brother and sister-in-law of accused No.1. It is alleged
that, in furtherance of common intention since two years from
the date of their marriage, accused No.1 joined hands with
accused 2 & 3, forced PW1 to bring dowry of Rs.50,000/- from
her parents’ house and in that regard they subjected PW1 to
mental and physical harassment and many-a-times have also
wrongfully confined PW1. It is further alleged that the accused
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
have deposited the gold ornaments of PW1 which was given by
her parents at the time of marriage, in a Bank locker in the
name of the son of accused 2 & 3 so as to cause mental
harassment to PW1. It is further alleged that on 12th February,
2008 at about 7.00 am, accused No.1 kicked PW1 on her
stomach and voluntarily caused hurt to her chest and pushed
her to wall holding her tuft. Thereafter, all the accused thrown
PW1 out of the house cautioning her to come back home only
with dowry and closed the door on her back. Then she was
admitted to Kadaba CHC Hospital where she had given the
statement to the State House Officer, Subrahmanya. On
investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 342 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Case was registered in
CC No.658 of 2008. Upon issuance of summons, accused
appeared and were enlarged on bail. Upon hearing, the trial
Court framed charges against the accused for alleged
commission of offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, sixteen
witnesses have been examined as PWs1 to 16 and seventeen
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P17. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the
accused have totally denied the prosecution evidence. One
Giridhara Nayak has been examined as DW1 and got marked
twelve documents as Exhibits D1 to D12. Having heard the
arguments, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State preferred
appeal before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.5031
of 2017. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the
appellate Court by judgment dated 14th December, 2018.
Being aggrieved by the judgments of acquittal passed by the
trial Court which is affirmed by the appellate Court, the State
has preferred the present revision petition.
4. Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government
Pleader, appearing for the State would submit that the
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court which
is confirmed by the trial Court are illegal and contrary to law,
evidence and material on record. He would submit that both
the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
prime witnesses PWs.1 to 7, 10 & 13 to 16 and have also not
considered that the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 are corroborated by
the evidence of PW13-Medical Officer. The courts below have
not considered the evidence of PW1-Kum. Ambika who is the
child witness, but wrongly discarded the evidence on the
ground that she has no proper knowledge about the incident
and that she is a tutored witness. PWs1 & 2 have not
considered the letter written by PW1-Savitha Nayak to her
parents regarding the harassment given by the accused to her.
On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition
and to convict the accused.
5. As against this, Smt. Saksha Bhagavan, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, would submit
that both the courts below have appreciated the evidence on
record in accordance with law and facts and that there are
absolutely no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal
passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate
Court and hence sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and the
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused, the
only point that needs to be addressed in this revision petition
is, Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the
trial Court which is affirmed by the appellate Court is
capricious, illegal and suffers from legal infirmities requiring
this Court to intercede?
7. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and
appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of
Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate
Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.
8. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676,
at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus:
“23. While considering the scope of power of the
appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal,
after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v.
State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court
summarised the principle as under:-
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding powers
of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
against an order of acquittal emerge:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019HC-KAR
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
puts no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate court on
the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion,
both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial
and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient
grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted
conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not
intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes
of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an
appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to
curtail the power of the court to review the evidence
and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in
mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent
unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible
on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial court.”
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
9. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE
OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC
ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under:
“16. The High Court in the present case was
dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case,
it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with
an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a
different view is possible or even preferable. The High
Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order
of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The
interference of the High Court in such cases is governed
by well-established principles. According to these
principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by
the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without
evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of
acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering
where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in
accordance with law and that the approach of the trial
court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …”
10. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4
of the judgment, it is observed thus:
“4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional
Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019HC-KAR
hand contended that the power of the High Court while
hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no
way different from the power while hearing an appeal
against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully
justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon
which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court
having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions
Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and
having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are
in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross
miscarriage of justice and the mis-appreciation of the
evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully
entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can
be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that
the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal
against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in
an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re-
appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the
evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the
acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the
High Court would not be justified in interfering with the
acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a
trial court, have taken the other view. While re-
appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires
that the High Court should give proper weight and
consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But
if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely
perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong
appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and
proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019HC-KAR
acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise,
there would be gross miscarriage of justice….”
11. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA
RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the
judgment it is held as under:
“8. The scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that
the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it
is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal.
Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to
set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the
Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more
probable. The interference would be warranted only if the
view taken is not possible at all.”
12. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at
paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
“12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a
competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the
trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then
the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on
the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No
doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the
power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019HC-KAR
reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which
the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be
very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there
are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with
the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing
an order has to give clear reasoning for such a
conclusion.”
13. It is also necessary to mention here as to the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as to burden of proof in
offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the
case of NANJUNDAPPA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in 2022 LIVELAW (5) 489, the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Stricto
Sensu would not apply to criminal cases.
14. I have carefully examined the material placed before
this Court. The trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence on record and at paragraphs 50 to 52, has observed
as under:
“50. In may view that, the over all oral and
documentary evidence does not prove the guilt of the
accused Persons to bring home their guilt for the offences
punishable U/Sec 498A, 323, 342 R/w 34 IPC and Sec.3,
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act since there is no single iota of
evidence to the accused persons have subjected the PW1
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019HC-KAR
to any kind of cruelty, as there are sufficient evidence
have been brought on record in the defence evidence
through the EXD1 and 2 Bank Pass books and EXD3 a
book showing the food ration to show that the accused
NO.1 has looked after both PW1 and 2 well during their
stay with him with love and affection. Further, the EXD4.
the previous statement of PW1 during the legal
proceedings in Cri. Misc. NO.31/2008 as the Accused
NO.1 has not given any sort of ill treatment to her in his
house at Subramanya, it is complete go by to her own
case. It is also to note that, EXD5 and 6 School fee
receipts for having paid fee by the accused no.1 toward
the education of his daughter PW2. LIC policy in the name
of the PW2, further more, he had constructed new house
out of his earning. It is not to be treated for his posh full
life, since, there is no single evidence have been placed
on record by the prosecution to show that, the accused
had led his posh full life, so the wife and daughter who
are none other than the PW1 and 2 are alone beneficiaries
since the accused No1 and the 2 and 3 are not residing
together and they are living separately. These are all
defence evidence demolishes the whatever evidence
placed on record by the prosecution alleging that the
accused NO.1 had subjected his wife and child to cruelty.
Moreover, the fact that, since the Accused NO.1 is not so
intelligent in all the business as admitted by the PW6 in
her evidence during the cross examination that could be
seen at page 2 in 3rd paragraph it is extracted for thepurpose of brevity as ‘1 ೇ ಆ ೋ ೆ ಆ ೋಗ ಸ ಇಲ ಆತ ೆ ಸಲ
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
ಾನ ಕ ಾ ೆ ಇ ೆ. ಾ ಾ 2 ೇ ಆ ೋ ತ ಆತನ ೊಡ
ಅಣ” ಾಗ#ೇ ಾ$ದು’ ಆತ ೇ ಮ ೆಯ ಎ ಾ ವ ವ ಾರ ೋ- ೊಳ/012ದ’ರು’ So it
is natural that a elder brother will have to take care of his
brother who is not mentally sound. That itself does not
give right to the wife to see for the complete separation of
her husband’s family members from showing such natural
love affection by the relatives. Further more, the DW1
Giridhara Nayak who is the son of the A2 and 3 whose
name was initially had inserted as an accused and later
stage, his name was deleted in the form of further
statement of PW1, that his oral evidence itself goes to
show, that, the arraigning the A2 and 3 as accused
persons in the instant case is for the reason best known
to the PW1 to6 and the PW17 which is not made clear.
Therefore, that all the documentary evidence that
corroborates with the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses it. Therefore, prosecution cannot deny these
official documents it is so relevant as to the entries made
by the official u/s 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
51. Coming to the physical cruelty is concerned, as
already discussed when the PW1 herself had admitted in
the judicial proceedings in the above mentioned case
registered under the provisions of prevention of Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, as the accused NO.1 did not subject
her to any sort of cruelty, in this regard, I have gone
through the relevant provision that speaks about this fact;
Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;-
Relevancy of certain evidence for providing in subsequent
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019HC-KAR
proceeding, the truth of facts there in stated. Evidence
given by a witness in a judicial proceedings or before any
person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the
purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding,
or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the
truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead
or cannot be found. or is incapable of giving evidence, or
is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his
presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay
or expense which under the circumstances of the case,
the Court considers unreasonable:
Provided – that the proceeding was between the
same parties or their representatives in interest;
That the adverse party in the first proceeding had
the right and opportunity to cross-examine;
That the questions in issue are substantially the
same in the first as in the second proceedings.
52. On reading of the provision, that the statement
that was given by the PW1 in the above judicial
proceedings is relevant for the consideration it goes to the
root of the matter as relevant with respect to the alleged
fact of cruelty alleged to have committed by the accused
NO.1. That, the EXP15 wound certificate also does not any
vital role in deciding the case in favour of the prosecution
in respect of the points for the determination, accordingly,
the EXD8 is the invitation card showing the house
warming ceremony that was held on 15/2/2008 just 2
days prior to the alleged FIR lodged against the accused
persons. Therefore, it is argued that, the intention of the
PW1 with the instigation of PW6 and her husband
Vinayaka Kamath to send all the accused persons to jail
on the very day of house warming ceremony so to
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
prevent them from doing it. From the evidence it is also
can be seen that, a person who had spent more than 5
lakhs towards construction of the new house, whether he
can demand dowry of Rs.50.000 only after completion of
the said construction from his wife after leading long life,
it is the question and doubt that created in the mind of
the Court. It is also Of course, whatever may be the
intention behind launching the prosecution, but it is to say
that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged
act of the accused persons attracting the penal provisions
U/Sec 498A, 323, 342 R/w 34 IPC and Sec.3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt due to
insufficient evidence, therefore, by extending the benefit
of such doubt in favour of the accused persons, I answer
these points NO.1 to 4 in the negative.”
15. The appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence
on record and has come to the conclusion that there are no
grounds to interfere with the finding given by the trial Court.
16. On re-evaluation of the evidence of prosecution
witnesses as also the observation made by the trial Court and
the appellate Court, I am of the considered opinion that both
the courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in
accordance with law and facts. I do not find any error/legal
infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR
which is confirmed by the appellate Court. Accordingly, the
point arose for consideration is answered in the negative. In
the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Revision petition dismissed;
ii) Judgment of acquittal dated 20th January 2017
passed in CC No.658 of 2008 by the Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sullia, Dakshina Kannada
(for short referred to as the ‘trial Court’)
which is confirmed by the V Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru sitting at Puttur in Criminal Appeal
No.5031 of 2017 dated in 14th December,
2018, are confirmed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
LNN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20456
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2019
HC-KAR