THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs RAJU
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200189 OF 2026
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MADBOOL POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY,
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADDL.SPP)
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. RAJU
S/O TIMMAYYA DEVAKUR PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: CONTRACTOR WORK,
R/O. INGANKAL VILLAGE,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.
2. BUDDAPPA @ NARASIMHA
S/O TIMMAYYA DEVAKUR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
OCC: LABOUR WORK,
R/O. INGANKAL VILLAGE,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 419(1) AND (3) OF
BNSS (UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C), PRAYING
TO,
A) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 29.11.2025 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI SITTING AT SEDAM IN SESSIONS
CASE NO.05/2021 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.11.2025
PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI, SITTING AT SEDAM IN SESSIONS CASE NO.05/2021
THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE.
C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.11.2025
passed in Sessions Case No.5 of 2021 by the learned
IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi
sitting at Sedam, for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are as
under:
The marriage of sister of CW.1 namely, Laxmi
(deceased) was performed with accused No.1, a
resident of Ingankal Village, Chittapur Taluk,
Kalaburagi District. Out of their wedlock, they have
03 children and they have led a happy married life till
the birth of 03 children. Two years prior to the
incident, the deceased left 03 children at her parental
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
house at Kerur village. The deceased along with her
husband i.e., accused No.1 went to Chevela village,
Telangana State, for doing coolie work for their
livelihood. The deceased and her husband i.e.,
accused No.1 used to visit Kerur and Ingankal village
frequently. Since one year prior to the incident, the
deceased-Laxmi was talking with Dastappa, who is
the driver of the tractor and it was witnessed by
accused No.1. Hence, accused No.1 picked up quarrel
with the deceased. The deceased Laxmi used to talk
continuously with Dastappa. Hence, accused No.1
suspected the character/fidelity and hatched a plan
to eliminate his wife Laxmi. On 13.07.2019 at about
11:15 a.m., accused No.1 was observing the absence
of neighbours with an intention to kill his wife. He
told accused No.2 to stand on the road backside of
his house and to watch the arrival of any person.
Accused No.1 made her to fall on the ground in the
courtyard of his house, sat on her chest and
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
committed her murder by tying veil to her neck and
strangulating. Due to which, the said Laxmi
succumbed at the spot. On the basis of the
complaint, the police registered the case in Crime
No.60 of 2019 for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet
and copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the
accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and the case
was committed to the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Kalaburagi under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, the case was assigned to IV-Additional
District and Sessions Court, Kalaburagi, sitting at
Sedam.
4. On the receipt of the committal records, charge was
framed against the accused persons for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
IPC, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution to prove its case examined 16
witnesses as PW1 to PW16 and marked 30
documents as Exs.P1 to P30 and MOs. 1 to 5.
6. After recording the evidence of the charge sheeted
witnesses, the statement of accused Nos.1 and 2
were recorded under Section 351 of BNSS, 2023
(313 of Cr.P.C.) and they have denied every
incriminating evidence as against them and did not
choose to lead either oral or documentary evidence
on their behalf.
7. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, framed the following points for
consideration:
1) Whether the prosecution proves that
CW.1's deceased sister Laxmi's marriage took
place with the accused No.1, since 02 years,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
the accused No.1 and Laxmi went to Chevela
village, Telangana State for doing coolie work,
where the deceased had acquainted with one
tractor driver by name Dastappa and used to
talk with him, accused No.1 on seeing the
same started to quarrel with her by
suspecting her fidelity, on the date
13.07.2019, the accused No.1 on observing
the absence of neighbours with an intention
to commit murder of the deceased Laxmi, the
accused No.1 instructed the accused No.2 to
stand on the road backside of the house for
seeing arrival of any person and then the
accused No.1 at around 11.15 AM pushed her
on the ground in the courtyard of his house
and strangulated her with veil by sitting on
her chest, due to which said Laxmi died on
the spot and thereby accused No.1 and 2
committed the offence punishable U/Sec.302
R/w Section 34 of IPC?
2) What order?
8. The Trial Court, after appreciating the entire
evidence on record, answered point No.1 in the
Negative and point No.2 as per the final order and
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
the accused were acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC vide judgment dated 29.11.2025. The State
aggrieved by the same has filed this appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State.
10. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing
for the appellant-State submits that the reasons
assigned by the Trial Court while passing the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal are
erroneous and as such, the Court slipped into an
error and passed the impugned judgment resulting in
substantial miscarriage of justice. He submits that
PW.1 who is the brother of the deceased-Laxmi has
deposed in his evidence that the marriage of the
deceased-Laxmi and accused No.1 was performed in
the year 2007 and out of the said wedlock, 03
children were born. Deceased-Laxmi contacted her
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
father at 10:30 a.m., on the date of the incident.
Thereafter, at 12.00 p.m., accused No.1 informed
CW.4 over phone that Laxmi died by strangulating
herself. Immediately, they came to place of incident
and saw that the dead body was lying on the
courtyard of the house and he noted the injuries on
the neck. He has deposed that Laxmi was murdered
by strangulating with the veil. The prosecution also
examined the mother of the deceased who supported
the case of the prosecution. The family members of
the deceased have supported the case of the
prosecution. The Trial Court, without considering the
said aspect, has committed an error in passing an
impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the appeal.
11. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
12. The following points would arise for our
consideration:
i. Whether the appellant-State proves
that the impugned judgment passed
by the Trial Court is arbitrary and
erroneous and without appreciation
of evidence?
ii. What order?
13. The prosecution examined the brother of the
deceased by name Venkatswamy as PW1. He has
reiterated the complaint averments in the
examination in chief and the copy of the complaint
was marked as Ex.P1 and his signature was marked
as Ex.P1(a) and signature of PW.15 was marked as
Ex.P1(b). During the course of cross-examination of
PW.1, it is elicited that prior to the marriage of the
deceased, accused No.1 is a far relative to his family
and he has stated that after marriage, the deceased
and accused No.1 led a happy marital life and his
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
sister gave birth to 03 children. Prior to the death of
his sister, for about 01 to 02 years, his sister and
accused No.1 were residing in Chevela village. It is
suggested that his sister i.e., the deceased was
advised by the family members not to talk with
Dastappa and he has stated that at the time of
advice, his parents and brothers were present. It is
also elicited that there are many houses in the
vicinity of accused No.1's house and he has stated
that there were no injuries on the neck of the
deceased-Laxmi. Ex.P1 was not in his handwriting. It
was written by one of their society members. He had
only given information to write Ex.P1, his family
members had not given any information and he has
stated that he cannot read and write Kannada
properly. After giving complaint, he had not enquired
with any locals. Accused No.1 has voluntarily
surrendered before Kalagi Police Station.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
14. The prosecution examined the mother of the
deceased-Laxmi as PW2/CW3. Her evidence is a
hearsay witness. It is elicited that accused No.1 had
developed animosity against the deceased as she
was having illicit relationship with Dastappa.
15. The prosecution examined the brother of the
deceased-Laxmi as PW.3 who has deposed on par
with PW.1. During the course of cross-examination,
he has stated that after the marriage, for 7 to 8
years, accused No.1 and deceased Laxmi had led a
happy married life. He has deposed that he and his
brothers were residing separately.
16. The prosecution examined the father of the deceased
by name Gollappa as PW.4. Even he has deposed on
par with PWs.1 to 3. But, during the cross
examination, it is elicited that Laxmi's love marriage
had taken place some 04 years back and prior to the
marriage, she had not taken consent of the parents.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
He has further stated that for a period of two years,
there was a strained relationship between his
daughter and his family. Thereafter, there was a
cordial relationship between his family and the
daughter and accused No.1.
17. The prosecution got examined one person who is a
resident of Chevela village, Telangana State, as
PW.5. He has deposed that deceased-Laxmi and
accused No.1 working as labours and they were
residing in some tent at Chevela place and they were
in Chevela place since from 2017 till 2019.
18. PW.6 is a panch witness to Exs.P9 and P10. During
the cross examination, he pleaded his ignorance to
photographs at Exs.P9 and P10 which were taken by
the police. PW6 has turned hostile.
19. The prosecution examined the doctor as PW.7 who
had conducted postmortem examination on the dead
body of Lakshmi.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
20. Further the prosecution has examined the doctor by
name Dr. Girish who conducted the postmortem
examination on the dead body of Laxmi, namely
CW.17 as PW.7. Said witness in the course of his
evidence stated that on examination, it was dead
body of a female aged about 31 years, modularly
built face swollen, brownish colored. Eyes closed,
conjuctiva congested. Face, neck, upper part of
shoulder, both sides upper part of arms and four
arms shows features of early decomposition
compared to chest, abdomen and lower limbs.
Purging of blood strained froth present over mouth
and nostrils. Tongue protruded out. Rigor mortis -
partially present in lower limb ankle joint. Nail beds
bluish colored. Marbling of veins and peeling of skin
present at places over both sides of chest. Face and
sub mandibular region appears swollen and more
brownish than the neck. Discoloration, demarcation
appreciated at the junction of sub mandibular region
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
and upper part of neck. Small patches of
subcutaneous extra extravasation noted at places
over right side sub mandible region, right side lower
outer part of neck and left side front of chest with
peeling of superficial layer of skin. On dissection of
neck subcutaneous tissue and strap muscles appear
reddish brown colored. Hyoid bone and surrounding
tissues sent for histopathology examination. II.
CRANIUM AND SPINAL CANAL:- Brain and spinal
cord-Brain-soft and congested. III. THORAX:- 1)
Right Lung & Left Lungs - Soft and congested. IV)
ABDOMEN:- 1) Stomach and its contents - contains
100 ml of yellowish partially digested food particles,
mucosa appears normal, 2) Small and Large intestine
and its contents - contains Gays. V) GENITO
URINARY ORGANS:- 1) Kidneys-congested. Time
since death approximately 18 to 36 hours before P.M
Viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis in
04 bottles. Provisional opinion as to cause of death
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
was kept. He received RFSL report and
histopathology report on the date 12.09.2019, based
on the same, he had given the final report as to the
cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of
constriction of neck, which was marked at Ex.P.16
and Postmortem examination report was marked at
Ex.P.15. In conducting the said postmortem
examination, CW.18 assisted him. The above said
injuries over the neck is possible when extra
pressure is acted on the neck being bluish colored
was a sign of asphyxia.
21. During the course of cross-examination, he has
stated that at the time of conducting PME, he himself
and CW.18 were present as Medical Experts. He has
stated that normally, it takes time about 24 hours
after the death to have discoloration over the face.
He has stated that there was congestion in the brain,
it was due to stoppage of blood supply in the brain.
He has stated that normally decomposition in the
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
dead body starts after 24 hours and then gradual
process of decomposition starts. He has stated that
purging of blood strained, rigor-mortis in lower limb,
nail beds bluish color, marbling of veins and peeling
of skin all starts after the lapse of 24 hours from the
death of a person. Witness further volunteered that
nail beds being bluish coloured was a sign of
asphyxia. He has denied the suggestions made by
the defence counsel that, when a person falls from
height, he will sustain the above injuries and that the
death will be caused, claiming the said suggestion as
false one. He has denied that he was not assisted by
CW.18 and that he has never prepared Ex.P.15 as
under the law. He has denied that he has not
received any RFSL and hyoid bone report and that he
gave the false final opinion as to cause of death at
Ex.P.16.
22. The entire case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence. The prosecution in order to
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
prove the chain link of the evidence, except
examining the relative witnesses of deceased, has
not examined any independent witnesses nor the
neighbors. The Trial Court has recorded its finding in
paragraphs-45 to 50 of the impugned judgment
which reads as follows:
“45.The prosecution's case relies heavily
on the testimony of PW.1 to PW.4, the family
members of the deceased Laxmi, which reveals
a sequence of events leading to her death. The
witnesses state that Laxmi and her husband,
the accused No.1 visited Kerur village, then
proceeded to Totanalli village to visit his ailing
sister. They returned to Inganakal village the
next day, and Lakshmi informed her parents
she would visit them later that evening.
However, at around 12.30 PM, they received
news of Lakshmi's death and upon visiting
accused No.1's house, they found injury marks
on her neck, leading them to suspect foul play
and accused No.1 of her murder. The
prosecution's attempt to establish a motive
behind accused No.1's alleged crime also falls
flat due to the testimonies of PW.5 Mallareddy
and PW.14 Anjaneya. They failed to provide
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
evidence supporting the claim that accused
No.1 suspected Lakshmi's interaction with
Dastappa, which was supposed to be the driving
force behind the murder. Instead, their
statements seem to support the accused's case,
further weakening the prosecution's argument.
46. Furthermore on close evaluation of
the evidence of PW.6 the said pancha witness at
Ex.P.9 did not throw light upon the contents of
the above pancha and totally he turned hostel
to the case of the prosecution. Next the very
important witness, PW.7, the doctor in his
postmortem examination made it clear that the
death was due to asphyxia as a result of
constriction of the neck, but his evidence is not
well corroborated with the other mode of
evidence, wherein he would bring into light,
whether it was a case of throttling; however the
accused with the help of his hands had caused
her death or in other words was the present
case, one under strangulation where the
accused No.1 committed the murder with the
help of MO.1, the veil by tying it to her neck
tightly pressing and then killing her or else is it
genuinely a case of hanging at the hands of the
accused No.1. The medical evidence here is a
utter failure because to bring home the guilt of
the accused in such a case of circumstantial
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
based evidence, the evidence should be crystal
clear. So the medical evidence is not much
inspiring to come to a certainty that either the
accused with the help of one veil strangulated
her neck or with the help of his hand he had
constricted the neck thereby resulting into the
death. So the question mark remains in the
evidence of said Medical Expert. The
prosecution here though made an honest
attempt, but the evidence falls short of to elicit
the reality as to how exactly she was killed
because this Court has also sensed the evidence
of PW.15, wherein he stated that when he went
to the house of the accused No.1, where the
deceased lady was in hanging state of body. So
it contradicts the prosecution case. So with the
evidence of PW.15, the prosecution had tried to
arraign that she was killed with the help of
MO.1 and then hanged. So however there is no
much clarity in the medical evidence to bring
home the guilt of the accused for the aforesaid
offence as under the law.
47. Furthermore, this Court on close
evaluation of the inquest panchanama at
Ex.P.6, it nowhere tells about what type of
injury was to be seen in and around her neck.
What was the exact measurement? The size of
the injury. Was there any lacerated wound, so
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
not much clarity even with the Ex.P.6, the
inquest panchanama. In similar lines this Court
having keenly perused the PME copy as issued
by the said Medical Expert, namely PW.7, there
too nothing is shown as to what sort of injuries
were present on the neck part? Was it only in
the front or was it complete neck being covered
or was it the lacerated wound pertaining to the
V shape? So nothing has been revealed at the
said document at Ex.P.15. Hence this Court
precisely cannot come to the conclusion that the
accused No.1 himself had committed the
murder of the deceased Laxmi either by way of
throttling or by way of strangulation with the
help of the MO.1.
48. Furthermore with the evidence of the
PW.11, the WPC who escorted the dead body of
the deceased and then collected the clothes of
the deceased Lakshmi assigned the same to the
Final Investigating Officer and the PW.9 Police
Constable who snapped the photographs at
Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 during the
course of conducting inquest panchanama and
spot panchanama.
49. Furthermore PW.8 who was assigned
the task of arresting the accused No.1 and
thereby he having arrested and produced before
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
the higher officers and with the evidence of
PW.10, he is another Head Constable who also
went in search of the accused No.1, but his
whereabouts not being traced, similar manner
PW.12, another Head Constable also went in
search of accused No.2, but he could not find
his whereabouts and was not arrested and then
PW.13, the ASI who helped the Junior Engineer
to prepare the sketch map and then he and his
colleague CW.25 went to Chavela village to
collect the statements of PW.5 and PW.14, so
with their evidence this doubt, this Court does
not doubt about their credibility as to all these
witnesses having performed their respective
tasks as under the law.
50. Furthermore PW.15 and PW.16, the
subsequent Investigating Officers in the said
case, they to have led their part of investigation
and then appoint therein as to what was the
role exactly played by them, but PW.15's
evidence he is filled with some amount of
discrepancy though it appears he had stated the
truth-hood but that affects the prosecution case
and that is nothing but when he went into the
house of the accused No.1, he saw the dead
body was hanging, so this Court can also
assume the facts in other way that it might be a
case of hanging and not the case of either
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
throttle throttling or strangulation, so this being
the evidence led by the official witnesses, but in
a case of circumstantial evidence every chain of
events should be so well linked that in all
hypothesis the guilt of the accused is
highlighted, so in the present case in hand
there is no such chain link of evidence, so that
in all probability it highlights the guilt of the
accused and nothing else, so based on this, the
Court deems fit to acquit the accused No.1 and
furthermore accused No.2 who is shown as the
brother and the nearest relative of the accused
No.1 having helped the accused No.1 to commit
the murder of deceased Laxmi but no any
cogent evidence established except the
confessional statement as under Ex.P.27, so
accused No.2 stands honorarily acquitted in the
present case in hand whereas accused No.1 by
giving benefit of doubt stands acquitted in the
present case in hand.”
23. From the perusal of the records, it clearly discloses
that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire
evidence on record and has held that the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused for the
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
1
H.D Sundara and others v. State of Karnataka ,
summarized the principles governing the exercise of
the Appellate Jurisdiction while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C,
which is as under:
“8. Normally, when an Appellate Court
exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of
the Appellate Court is to find out whether the
verdict which is under challenge is correct or
incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate
Court normally ascertains whether the
decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
the Appellate Court cannot examine the
impugned judgment only to find out whether
the view taken was correct or incorrect. After
re-appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence, the Appellate Court must first
1
(2023) 9 SCC 581
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
decide whether the Trial Court's view was a
possible view. The Appellate Court cannot
overturn acquittal only on the ground that
after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the
view that the guilt of the accused was
established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only
by recording such a conclusion an order of
acquittal cannot be reversed unless the
Appellate Court also concludes that it was the
only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate
Court must see whether the view taken by
the Trial Court while acquitting an accused
can be reasonably taken on the basis of the
evidence on record. If the view taken by the
Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate
Court cannot interfere with the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view
could have been taken.”
25. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble the
Apex Court rendered in the case of Sharad Birdhi
2
Chand Sarda v. State of Maharastra , wherein at
paragraph No.164, it is held as under:
2
(1984) 4 SCC 116
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
“164. We then pass on to another
important point which seems to have been
completely missed by the High Court. It is
well settled that where on the evidence two
possibilities are available or open, one which
goes in favour of the prosecution and the
other which benefits an accused, the accused
undoubtedly entitled to benefit of doubt. In
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
[(1973) 2 SCC 808] this Court made the
following observations (para 25 p.820).
“Another golden thread which runs
through the web of the administration of justice
in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, they view which is
favourable to the accused would be adopted.
This principle has a special relevance in cases
where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence.”
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Umedbhai
3
Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat , in paragraph
No.10 has held as under:
“10. Once the appeal was rightly
entertained against the order of acquittal, the
High Court was entitled to reappreciate the
entire evidence independently and come to its
own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court
would give due importance to the opinion of the
Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after
proper appreciation of the evidence...”
27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa
4
and Others v. State of Karnataka wherein at
paragraph No.44 it is held as under:
“In our view, if in the light of above
circumstances, the trial Court felt that the
accused could get benefit of doubt, the said
view cannot be held to be illegal, improper or
contrary to law. Hence, even though we are of
the opinion that in an appeal against acquittal,
3
1978 SCC (Cri) 108
4
(2007) 4 SCC 415
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
powers of appellate Court are as wide as that of
the trial Court and it can review, reappreciate
and reconsider the entire evidence brought on
record by the parties and can come to its own
conclusion on fact as well as on law, in the
present case, the view taken by the trial Court
for acquitting the accused was possible and
plausible. On the basis of evidence, therefore,
at the most, it can be said that the other view
was equally possible. But it is well-established
that if two views are possible on the basis of
evidence on record and one favourable to the
accused has been taken by the trial Court, it
ought not to be disturbed by the appellate
Court. In this case, a possible view on the
evidence of prosecution had been taken by the
trial Court which ought not to have been
disturbed by the appellate Court. The decision
of the appellate Court (High Court), therefore,
is liable to be set aside.”
(emphasis supplied)
5
28. In Tota Singh Vs. State of Punjab , the Hon’ble
Apex Court in para 6 has held as under:
5
(1987) 2 SCC 529
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
“6. … The jurisdiction of the appellate
Court in dealing with an appeal against an order
of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation
that no interference is to be made with the
order of acquittal unless the approach made by
the lower Court to the consideration of the
evidence in the case is vitiated by some
manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by
the Court below is such which could not have
been possibly arrived at by any Court acting
reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore,
liable to be characterized as perverse. Where
two views are possible on an appraisal of the
evidence adduced in the case and the Court
below has taken a view which is a plausible one,
the appellate Court cannot legally interfere with
an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion
that the view taken by the Court below on its
consideration of the evidence is erroneous.”
6
29. In State OF Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram , the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that:
“7. … The golden thread which runs
through the web of administration of justice in
criminal cases is that if two views are possible
6
(2003) 8 SCC 180
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
on the evidence adduced in the case, one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the view which is
favorable to the accused should be adopted.
The paramount consideration of the Court is to
ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented.
A miscarriage of justice which may arise from
acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. [Further, it is held
that] in a case where admissible evidence is
ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court
to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where
the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose
of ascertaining as to whether any of the
accused committed any offence or not. The
principle to be followed by the appellate Court
considering the appeal against the judgment of
acquittal is to interfere only where there are
compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.
If the impugned judgment is clearly
unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for
interference.”
7
30. In Surajpal Singh Vs. State , the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:
7
1951 SCC 1207
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
“7. It is well established that in an
appeal under Section 417 CrPC [old], the High
Court has full power to review the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal was
founded, but it is equally well settled that the
presumption of innocence of the accused is
further reinforced by his acquittal by the Trial
Court, and the findings of the Trial Court
which had the advantage of seeing the
witnesses and hearing their evidence can be
reversed only for very substantial and
compelling reasons.”
31. There is no embargo on the Appellate Court
reviewing the evidence upon which an order of
acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal
shall not be interfered with because the presumption
of innocence of the accused is further strengthened
by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through
the web of administration of the Justice in criminal
cases is that, if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the
guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
the view which is favourable to the accused should
be adopted. The paramount consideration of the
Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise
from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. This ratio is laid down in
8
the case of Ramanand Yadav Vs. Prabhunat Jha
and in the case of C.K. Dase Gowda And Others
9
Vs. State of Karnataka .
32. In view of the above, we do not find any grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the
Trial Court. Accordingly, we answer point No.(i) in
the negative, holding that the Criminal Appeal filed
by the State is liable to be dismissed.
Reg. Point No.(ii):
33. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
8
(2003) 12 SCC 606
9
2014(13) SCC 119
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10865-DB
CRL.A No.200189 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030046882026
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed .
ii. The impugned judgment dated
29.11.2025 passed in Sessions Case
No.05 of 2021 by IV-Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi sitting at
Sedam, is hereby confirmed .
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
NB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
Ct:pk