SHIV ANAND MALLAPPA KOTI versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 05-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHIV ANAND MALLAPPA KOT! 
: 
v. 
1 ,. 
THESTATEOFKARNATAKA 
JUNE 5, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARlJIT PASA VAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860: 
c 
Section 498-A-Death of a married woman by burn injuries allegedly 
for unlawful demand of money-Husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law 
prosecuted under Sections 302, 498-A /PC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the 
Dowry Prohibition Act-Conviction of mother-in-law by trial court of all the 
charges-Husband and brother-in-law convicted under Section 498-A /PC 
and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act-High Court affirming 
D conviction of husband under Section 498-A and acquitting remaining two 
accused of all the charges-Held: prosecution has failed to establish its case 
under Section 498-A-Conviction set aside-Ingredients of Section 498-A 
, 
_.... 
explained. 
Appellant (A-2), his mother-in-law (A-1) and brother (A-3) were 
E prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and 
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The prosecution 
case was that the deceased, the wife of the appellant, told her father PWl that 
when she was cooking, A-1 came behind her and lit fire to her Saree. The 
reason for the alleged killing was the demand of dowry and to substantiate 
F 
this, three letters were brought on record as Exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-4. The 
trial court convicted A-1 under Section 302 and 498-A IPC and under Sections 
3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused A-2 and A-3 were convicted 
,,, 
under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition 
Act On appeal, the High Court acquitted A-1 and A-3 of all the charges, but 
convicted A-2, the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved, A-2 filed 
G the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 498-A does not specifically speak of a dowry demand. 
It speaks of unlawful demand for property and valuable articles. The word 
I-I 
930 
' 
) 
SHIVANANDMALLAPPA KOTI "·STATE OF KARNATAKA [PASAYAT,J.) 
931 
"cruelty" under the Explanation deals with two types of circumstances. Clause A 
(a) refers to wilful conduct leading to suicide or grave injury or danger to 
life, limb or health which can be either mental or physical of the woman. 
Clause (b) relates to harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related 
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable or is on 
account of failure to meet such demand. 
(Para 8 and 91 (933-H; 934-A-BI B 
1.2. In the instant case, as regards the alleged demand in terms of 
Section 498-A IPC, even in the letters, on which prosecution placed heavy 
reliance, there is no reference to any demand of dowry or for that matter of 
any nature. In fact in Ex. P-2, the deceased had written to her mother that C 
she had promised to pay for some articles which the mother-in-law i.e. A-1 
had purchased. She had stated that she was embarrassed that her parents 
were not paying the money, though A-1 had never asked for it. This was not 
a case of any demand for property or valuable article. To similar effect was 
letter Ex. P-3. It is evident from the evidence on record that half of the marriage 
expenses were borne by the accused-appellant and his family. Even Ext. P-4 D 
on which the prosecution placed strong reliance does not speak of any demand. 
It only speaks of an apprehension of a second marriage. Besides, this letter 
was also written three years prior to the occurrence. 
(Para 101 [934-C-EI 
1.3. The prosecution has failed to establish its accusations so far as E 
Section 498-A IPC is concerned to hold the accused-appellant guilty. The 
conviction is, accordingly, set aside. (Para 11 I (934-F-GI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2001 of the High Court of 
Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 886 of 1997. 
Rajani K. Prasad and T.V. Ratnam for the Appellant. 
Amit Kumar Chawla (for Sanjay R. Hedge) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. In the present appeal, challenge is to a 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding 
F 
G 
H 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 7 S.C.R. 
A the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The appellant faced trial along with two 
others, i.e. his mother arid brother for offences punishable under Sections 302, 
498-A IPC and S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.