RAVEENDRA @ RAVI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.42 OF 2019 (C)


BETWEEN:

RAVEENDRA @ RAVI
S/O. SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT MOLEDODDI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-577 612
…APPELLANT







(BY SRI M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHANNAPATNA
RURAL POLICE
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT PREMISES
BENGALURU-560 001
…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


DATED 18.12.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN S.C.NO.18/2016-
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 392 AND 201 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 05.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD)


Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence dated 18.12.2018 passed in
S.C. No.18/2016 by the Court of the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, the accused/appellant has preferred this
appeal.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial
Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for two years. For the offence punishable under Section
392 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months. For the offence punishable under Section
201 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/,
in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen
days. It is relevant to note that the prosecution case was
against accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.2 was a minor
and his case was dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board.

3. Heard Sri M. Shashidhara, learned counsel for the
accused, and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the
material available on record.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


4. The first informant had lodged the complaint on
21.08.2015-Ex.P1 stating that some unknown persons had
killed his mother-Gangamma the deceased for her gold
earrings and maati, and requested the authorities to trace
and identify those responsible for her death.

4.1. On the basis of the complaint, marked as Ex.P1,
a case was registered and after investigation, the police
filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

4.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that,
on 20.08.2015, between 2.00 p.m. and 2.35 p.m., at
Mutthappanagudda forest area, Uragahalli, Moledaddi
village, the deceased Gangamma was grazing her cattle. It
is alleged that the present accused, along with a juvenile
in conflict with law, with an intention to rob her gold
earrings, maati and mobile phone, threatened to kill her
by showing a machete. When she resisted, she was made
to fall to the ground; the juvenile allegedly held her legs,
while accused No.1 held her by the shoulder and tuft and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


cut her neck with the machete, thereby committing an
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It is further
alleged that the accused robbed a pair of gold earrings,
maati and a Nokia mobile phone, thereby committing an
offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. To screen
the evidence, the accused allegedly washed the
bloodstained machete with water and broke the SIM card
used by the deceased, thereby committing an offence
punishable under Section 201 of IPC.

5. The accused denied the charges levelled against
him and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, the
prosecution examined 21 witnesses as PWs.1 to 21,
marked 37 documents as Exs.P1 to P37(a), and produced
MOs.1 to 12. After recording the statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
defence examined one witness as DW.1 and marked
Exs.D1 to D3.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


6. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial
evidence, principally the theory of last seen together, the
alleged recovery of gold ornaments and the mobile phone,
and the alleged recovery of the machete M.O-5 and shirt
M.O-7. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, concluded that the accused had
committed the murder with MO.5-machete, taken the gold
ornaments worn by the deceased and washed his shirt to
screen the evidence, and convicted him for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of IPC.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence, the accused/appellant is before this
Court.

8. Learned counsel for the accused contends that
the prosecution has failed to establish the motive, the last-
seen circumstance spoken to by PWs.11, 13 and 15, and
the recovery of MO.5. It is further contended that the
prosecution has not established that the deceased was

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


wearing the alleged gold articles–M.O 6 on the date of her
death; the call details were not accompanied by a
certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act;
and the FSL report does not support the prosecution case.

9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader contends that the last-seen circumstance has been
established through the evidence of PWs.11, 13 and 15.
She submits that PWs.5 and 8 have supported the
prosecution regarding the seizure mahazars at Exs.P7 to
P9; PW.1 identified the earrings and maati, and PW.6, the
daughter of the deceased, has also supported the
prosecution. It is further contended that Ex.P35, the FSL
report, supports the prosecution case in relation to the
chopper, notwithstanding the absence of bloodstains on
the shirt M.O 7. On these grounds, the learned High Court
Government Pleader submits that the prosecution has
proved the charges.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


10. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and having perused the evidence
on record, the following points arise for consideration:
''i) Whether the conviction and sentence passed
against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 392 and 201 read with
Section 34 of the IPC by the trial Court is
justified?

ii) Whether the evidence of last seen together is
sufficient enough to convict the accused in a case
resting entirely on the circumstantial evidence?''

11. Points Nos.(i) and (ii) are taken up together for
consideration, as they are interlinked.

12. Before examining the circumstances relied upon
by the prosecution, it is necessary to note that the case
rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. In such a case,
each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be
firmly established by reliable evidence, and the
circumstances so established must form a complete chain
pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused. The chain
must exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


guilt of the accused. A suspicion, however strong, cannot
take the place of proof. The circumstances must be
assessed cumulatively, and not in isolation.
Homicidal Death
13. The homicidal nature of the death is not in
dispute. PW.3, Dr. Kavitha, who conducted the
post-mortem examination–Ex P.4, found a horizontally
placed incised wound on the neck and opined that death
was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the
injuries sustained. She stated that the injury was ante-
mortem and could have been caused by a machete. The
evidence of the other witnesses, including PWs.7 and 10,
and the evidence of the investigating officer-PW.17, are
consistent with the presence of a slit injury on the neck.
The post-mortem evidence establishes that Gangamma
died a homicidal death. The question, however, is whether
the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused was responsible for that death and committed
the other offences alleged.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


MOTIVE:
14. In Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration,
(1994) Supp (3) SCC 367 , the Supreme Court examined
the importance of motive in a case resting on
circumstantial evidence, while reiterating that the
circumstances relied upon must be fully established and
must form a complete chain. Further, in Mahendra Singh
and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 INSC
637 , the Apex Court held that-

"23. Insofar as the contention of learned DAG for
the respondent state that the prosecution has
proved the motive is concerned, it is well settled
that only because motive is established, the
conviction cannot be sustained.."

The prosecution alleges that the accused and the
juvenile in conflict with law committed the murder with the
intention of robbing the deceased of her gold earrings,
maati and mobile phone. However, there is contradiction
of evidence about the gold earrings and maati discussed
supra. Motive assumes relevance in a case resting on

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


circumstantial evidence, though the absence of proof of
motive does not, by itself, necessarily defeat the
prosecution. The alleged motive must nevertheless be
considered along with the remaining circumstances and
the quality of the evidence relied upon to establish the
robbery, which is not established by the prosecution.


15. PW.1-Sridhar, the son of the deceased, stated
that his mother left to graze cattle at about 11.00 a.m. on
20.08.2015 and ordinarily returned between 5.30 p.m.
and 6.00 p.m. As she did not return, he and others
searched for her. On the following morning, 21.08.2015,
they found her body in the forest near the pathway leading
to Muthappana Betta. In the Ex.P1-complaint he had
stated that someone has taken away earrings and maati
and has committed murder. PW.2-Puttaswamy, an inquest
mahazar witness, also stated that the deceased was not
wearing earrings and that there were no injuries or marks

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


on her earlobes. PW.3, the doctor, likewise stated that
there were no injuries on the earlobes.

16. However, PW.10-Billiyappa, who scribed the
complaint and was also a witness to the inquest mahazar,
stated that the deceased was wearing earrings and maati
when he saw the body and that the earrings were
removed after the mahazar while the body was being
taken away. PW.11 stated that he did not notice earrings
or other ornaments on the deceased, whereas PW.13
stated that the earrings and maati were missing. The
deceased was wearing the alleged ornaments at the time
her body was found or whether they had been removed
before the witnesses saw her. The medical evidence, which
records no injury to the earlobes, does not by itself resolve
this contradiction.

16.1. In view of these contradictory versions, the
prosecution has failed to establish with certainty that the
deceased was wearing the gold earrings and maati at the

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


time of the incident and that the same were removed by
the accused in the course of committing the murder. The
very foundation of the alleged motive of robbery is thus
rendered uncertain. Mere recovery of the ornaments, even
if accepted, cannot by itself establish that the murder was
committed for the purpose of robbing the deceased.
Consequently, the alleged motive remains unsubstantiated
and does not lend assurance to the prosecution case.

17. As regards the mangalya chain, PW.13 stated
that it was broken and lying near the body, and the
investigating officer, PW.17, also referred to that
circumstance. The prosecution has therefore not
established a clear and consistent account of the
ornaments allegedly worn by the deceased, the ornaments
taken, and the circumstances in which they were removed
or recovered. The recovery of the earrings and maati must
consequently be assessed with caution and cannot,

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


without reliable corroboration, conclusively establish the
motive of robbery or connect the accused with the murder.

18. PW.5-Basavaraj and PW.8-Bommaraju were
cited as witnesses to the recovery mahazars. Their
evidence regarding the timing and sequence of the
recoveries does not correspond with the times recorded in
the mahazars. PW.5 stated that PW.1 informed him at
about 2.00 p.m. that the accused had been apprehended
and asked him to accompany him to the police station,
where the mobile phone, earrings and maati were found.
PW.8 similarly spoke of going to the police station with
PW.5 after receiving information from PW.1, and placed
their arrival at about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. However,
Ex.P7 records the gold recovery between 11.15 a.m. and
12.15 p.m.; Ex.P8 records the mobile phone recovery
between 12.30 p.m. and 1.00 p.m.; and Ex.P9 records the
recovery of the machete and shirt between 2.00 p.m. and
3.00 p.m. The discrepancy affects the reliability of the

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


recovery evidence and the sequence in which the
recoveries took place.

19. PW.1, in his complaint at Ex.P1, stated that the
earrings and maati belonging to his mother were missing.
However, there are material inconsistencies in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this regard, as
discussed supra . That apart, PW.1 has not stated in the
complaint that the mobile phone (M.O.4) was missing.
These inconsistencies assume significance, as the alleged
robbery is relied upon by the prosecution not merely to
establish motive but also as an incriminating circumstance
connecting the accused with the commission of the crime.
In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion
that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged
motive.
LAST SEEN THEORY :
20. Further, the prosecution relies upon the
evidence of PWs.11, 13 and 15 to establish that the

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.
The last-seen circumstance is not, by itself, conclusive. Its
evidentiary value depends upon the circumstances in
which the deceased and the accused were seen together,
the proximity of time between that sighting and the death,
and whether the evidence excludes the reasonable
possibility of the involvement of another person. In a case
of this nature, the circumstance must be reliable and must
fit with the other links in the chain.

21. PW.11-Sottaiah stated that at about 11.00 a.m.
on 20.08.2015, he saw the deceased taking her cattle into
the forest, carrying a machete and a water bottle, and that
she was accompanied by PW.13-Gowramma and PW.16-
Siddamma. He further stated that accused No.1 and the
juvenile in conflict with law also went into the forest to
graze their cattle, before the deceased and the women
entered. PW.11 stated that accused No.1 was carrying a
machete. He also stated that villagers would go to the

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


forest daily to graze cattle, that approximately 25 to 30
households owned cattle, and that people commonly
carried machetes. After the deceased was reported
missing, villagers searched for her and found her body the
following morning, with her machete and water bottle
nearby.

22. PW.13-Gowramma stated that she went to the
forest with the deceased and PW.15-Chikkalingaiah to
graze cattle. According to her, at about 4.00 p.m., when
she and PW.15 were leaving, they asked the deceased to
return with them, but she chose to remain longer so that
the cattle could continue grazing. They then left her in the
forest. The next morning, PW.13 joined the villagers in
searching for the deceased, and they found her body with
a slit injury to the neck. PW.13 stated that the deceased's
bottle and machete were lying nearby and that the
mangalya chain was broken and lying near the body, while
the earrings and maati were missing.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


23. The evidence of PW.15-Chikkalingaiah does not
corroborate PW.13 on the material aspect of they having
accompanied the deceased into the forest on the day in
question. PW.15 stated that he had not accompanied
PW.13 and the deceased that day. He also stated that
many people went into the forest to graze cattle and that
he too went there, though not with the deceased and
PW.13 on that occasion. Further, PW.16-Siddamma, whom
PW.11 claimed to have seen with the deceased, stated
that she did not know the deceased at all. These are
material inconsistencies in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses relied upon to establish the
movements and company of the deceased on the relevant
day.
24. The evidence also shows that the forest was a
place commonly frequented by persons from the village
and neighbouring areas for grazing cattle and collecting
firewood. Several persons entered the forest carrying
machetes for their ordinary activities. The deceased was

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


last stated to have been seen by PW.13 at about 4.00
p.m., when she chose to remain in the forest after the
others left. Her body was discovered only on the following
morning. On the evidence available, the prosecution has
not established that the accused was seen in the exclusive
company of the deceased shortly before her death, nor
has it established a sufficiently proximate and unbroken
circumstance that excludes the possibility of intervention
by another person. The mere fact that the accused also
went into the forest to graze cattle does not, in the
circumstances of this case, complete the chain of evidence
against him.

25. The evidence of PW.11 that the accused was
carrying a machete does not materially advance the
prosecution case, since the evidence indicates that
persons going into the forest for grazing cattle commonly
carried such implements. The alleged presence of the
accused in the forest, without reliable evidence connecting

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


him to the deceased at the relevant time or otherwise
linking him to the fatal injuries, cannot be treated as proof
of guilt. The inconsistencies in the testimony of PWs.11,
13, 15 and 16 further prevent the last-seen circumstance
from being regarded as firmly established.
25.1. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994
Supp (2) SCC 372 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held at
paragraph 31 as under:
“31…Even if it is accepted that there was it would be
at best amount to the evidence of the appellants
havening been seen last together with the deceased.
But it is subtle law that the only circumstance of last
seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to
record the finding that it is consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore,
no conviction on that basis alone can be founded…”

From the above it is clear, that the circumstance of
last-seen-together, even if accepted, does not by itself
complete the chain of circumstances necessary to sustain
a conviction. The evidence placing an accused in the
vicinity of the place of occurrence, without reliably
connecting the accused with the deceased or the

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


commission of the offence, does not by itself possess
determinative value. These principles are relevant to the
present evidence, which does not reliably establish that
the deceased was in the exclusive company of the accused
shortly before her death. In this regard, the prosecution
relies upon the circumstance that the accused was seen in
the forest in the vicinity of the deceased; therefore, the
evidentiary value of the last-seen circumstance must be
assessed in accordance with settled law. Applying this
principle, the evidence that the accused was in the forest
does not, without a reliable link to the deceased shortly
before her death and without exclusion of reasonable
possibilities of intervention by others, complete the chain
of circumstances.
RECOVERY OF THE MACHETE AND SHIRT; FSL
REPORT
26. PW-5 Basavaraju and PW-8 Bommaraju are the
witnesses to the seizure and recovery mahazars, Exs.P7,
P8 and P9. Their evidence assumes significance in

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


assessing the circumstances surrounding the alleged
recovery of the mobile phone, gold ornaments, machete
and shirt. Both witnesses speak about having gone to the
police station pursuant to information received from PW-1
Sridhar that the accused had been apprehended. PW-5
deposes that Sridhar informed him at about 2:00 p.m. and
requested him to accompany him to the police station.
According to him, upon reaching the police station, the
police brought accused No.1 out and checked his pockets,
whereupon the mobile phone, gold earrings
and maati were found. PW-8, in his deposition, states that
he accompanied PW-5 to the police station and places
their arrival at approximately 2:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. He
too speaks about the recovery of the mobile phone and
gold ornaments in the presence of the police.

26.1. However, the timings recorded in the seizure
mahazars do not correspond with the sequence of events
spoken to by these witnesses. Ex.P7, pertaining to the

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


recovery of the mobile phone, MO-4, records the time of
the mahazar as 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., whereas Ex.P8,
pertaining to the recovery of the gold earrings and maati ,
MO-6, records the time as 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. These
timings are at variance with the depositions of PW-5 and
PW-8, who state that they reached the police station only
between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Consequently, their
evidence does not satisfactorily reconcile the time at which
they claim to have participated in the recovery
proceedings with the timings contemporaneously recorded
in the mahazars.

27. Further, Ex.P9 pertains to the alleged recovery
of the machete, MO-5, and the shirt, MO-7, and records
the time of the mahazar as 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the
spot of the incident. While the timing recorded in Ex.P9
broadly corresponds with the period during which PW-5
and PW-8 state that they were involved in the
proceedings, the evidence regarding the earlier recoveries

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


of the mobile phone and gold ornaments remains
unexplained. These discrepancies are material, as they
concern the sequence in which the prosecution claims that
the recoveries were effected. The evidence of the mahazar
witnesses, therefore, does not provide an entirely
consistent account of the recovery proceedings,
warranting caution in placing reliance upon the same.

28. The evidence of PW-20 Chaya Kumari, who
speaks about forwarding the material objects for forensic
examination, also requires consideration in this context.
She deposes that MOs.1 to 11 were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory. These included MO-1, the saree of the
deceased; MO-2, her blouse; MO-3, her petticoat; MO-5,
the machete allegedly used by the accused; MO-7, the
shirt allegedly worn by the accused at the time of the
incident; MO-9, the water bottle of the deceased; MO-10,
the mud collected from around the body of the deceased;
and MO-11, the machete of the deceased. According to her

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


deposition, human blood stains were found on MOs.1, 7, 9
and 11, whereas no blood stains were found on MOs.4, 6
and 8.

29. The evidence concerning MO-7, the shirt
allegedly worn by the accused at the time of the incident,
requires particular scrutiny. In his statement, Ex.P27, the
accused is stated to have expressed his willingness to lead
the police to the place where he had concealed MO-7 and
MO-5, the machete allegedly used in the commission of
the offence. While PW-20's deposition refers to the
presence of blood stains on MO-7, the FSL report, Ex.P35,
is stated to record that no blood stains were found on the
said shirt. This discrepancy between the oral evidence of
the witness and the contents of the forensic report
assumes significance, particularly when the prosecution
relies upon the alleged recovery of the shirt as a
circumstance connecting the accused with the crime.

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


30. On an overall consideration of the evidence of
PW-5 and PW-8, the timings recorded in Exs.P7 to P9, and
the evidence concerning the forensic examination of the
material objects, the recovery proceedings are not free
from material inconsistencies. The discrepancies in the
timings of the alleged recoveries, coupled with the
inconsistency concerning the presence of blood stains on
MO-7, weaken the evidentiary value of these
circumstances. The recovery evidence, when considered
cumulatively, does not inspire sufficient confidence to be
treated as an unassailable circumstance establishing the
prosecution case against the accused.
Call Detail Records (CDR)
31. The prosecution also refers to call details or call
history. However, as pointed out by the defence, the
relevant electronic record was not accompanied by a
certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. In the absence of compliance with the applicable
requirement for proving the electronic record, it cannot be

- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


relied upon as substantive evidence to complete the chain
of circumstances against the accused.

32. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
must be considered cumulatively. The homicidal death of
Gangamma is established. That fact, however, does not by
itself identify the person responsible. The alleged motive
of robbery is weakened by the inconsistent evidence
regarding the ornaments worn by the deceased and those
allegedly removed; the recovery witnesses do not give a
consistent account of the timing and sequence of the
recoveries; the last-seen evidence is affected by material
contradictions and does not establish that the deceased
was last seen in the exclusive company of the accused
shortly before her death; and the FSL evidence, as
presented, does not establish a reliable scientific
connection between the accused and the fatal act.

- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


33. The prosecution was required to establish each
incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and
to show that the circumstances, taken together, formed a
complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
The evidence on record does not satisfy that standard. The
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution raise
suspicion, but the gaps and inconsistencies prevent the
Court from concluding that the guilt of the accused has
been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

34. For the foregoing reasons and re-appreciation of
evidence, we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt, having regard to the cumulative effect
of the evidence on record and the material inconsistencies
therein. Consequently, the conviction of the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201
of the IPC cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Points Nos. (i)
and (ii) are answered in the negative.

- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019


ORDER

i. The criminal appeal is allowed.

ii. The judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence dated 18.12.2018
passed by the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in
S.C.No.18/2016, insofar as accused/
appellant is concerned, is hereby set
aside .

iii. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections
302, 392 and 201 of the IPC.

iv. He shall be released forthwith, if his
custody is not required in any other
matter.

- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59300-DB
CRL.A No. 42 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010318902019



v. Registry to communicate this order
to the Jail Authority, Ramanagara
through e-mail.


Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE




Mkm, Bsv
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1