SANNAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2019 (C-)
BETWEEN:
SANNAPPA
S/O. RAMAPPA @ NIKKAR RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC: LABOURER
R/O. OBALAPURA VILLAGE
BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI
CHITRADURGA-577 522
(IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRASAD B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BHARAMASAGARA P.S.
REP. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SUDHINDRA B. S., 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 DATED 29.12.2018
AND SENTENCE DATED 02.01.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN
S.C.NO.28/2016 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 302,
504, 323, 341, 506 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.10.2026, 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)
In the present appeal, the appellant-accused calls in
question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 29.12.2018 passed in S.C. No. 28/2016 by the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.
2. The accused was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months; to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
under Section 498-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two
months; to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 323 IPC, in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for 20 days; to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable
under Section 506 IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment
for 20 days for the offence punishable under Section 504
IPC; and to pay fines of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- for the
offences punishable under Sections 341 IPC, in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for ten days for non-
payment of fine.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
a) In the dying declaration marked as Ex.P14, it is
stated that, before the statement was recorded, the
consent of PW.8-doctor was obtained to the effect that the
deceased was in a position to give the declaration. It is
also stated that CW.9-Bairathy Siddappa and CW.10-
Obalappa were present when the dying declaration was
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
recorded. According to the declaration, the deceased had
married the accused about ten years earlier, and they had
two children. The accused allegedly subjected her to
physical and mental harassment, following which she left
the matrimonial home and went to her parental house.
After she returned, the accused continued to harass her
during the month preceding the incident. On 22.09.2015,
at about 9.30 p.m., the accused allegedly abused her in
filthy language, held a knife and prevented her from
leaving the house. He threatened to kill her and, while
showing the knife, directed her to pour kerosene on
herself and set herself on fire. The deceased came out of
the house with burn injuries and was taken to the hospital
by villagers. Ex.P14 is stated to have been recorded by
PW.12-ASI between 12.40 p.m. and 1.40 p.m. on
23.09.2015.
b) Statement was recorded by PW.12 on 23.09.2015
at 3:00 pm, Ex P15. In the statement, the deceased stated
that she had married the accused about ten years earlier
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
and that they had two children, a boy and a girl. The
accused quarrelled with her over trivial matters, assaulted
her and sent her, along with the children, to her parental
home. About three months before the incident, he came to
her parents’ house, assured her that he would take good
care of her and the children, and took her back to his
village, Obalapura. During the month preceding the
incident, he quarrelled with her daily over trivial issues,
assaulted her and subjected her to physical and mental
cruelty. On 22.09.2015, at about 9.30 p.m., after the
deceased had dinner and gone to sleep, the accused
abused her in filthy language. When she attempted to
leave the house, he closed the door, prevented her from
going out, threatened to kill her while holding a knife,
pushed her to the ground, got a kerosene can and forced
her to pour kerosene on herself before setting her ablaze.
When she ran out of the house engulfed in flames, PWs.3
and 4 and other neighbours extinguished the fire with a
blanket and took her to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere. The
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
statement mentions the physical and mental cruelty, as
well as the act of setting her on fire with an intention to
kill her.
c) Upon completion of the investigation, the police
filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences
referred to above. The accused denied the charges and
claimed to be tried. To prove its case, the prosecution
examined 15 witnesses as PWs.1 to 15, marked 23
documents as Exs.P1 to P23, and produced MOs.1 to 4.
The accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973 was recorded. He denied the
allegations, however, did not lead any defence evidence.
d) Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence,
particularly that of PWs.2, 4, 5, 8, 12 and 15, along with
the documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court
concluded that the accused was guilty of the
aforementioned offences and convicted and sentenced
him.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
4. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant
contends as follows:
i) Ex.P14 is the dying declaration, which was
recorded in the presence of CWs.9 and 10; however,
neither of them was examined by the prosecution.
Hence, Ex P14 cannot be relied by the prosecution.
ii) PW.8-doctor issued the consent/fitness
endorsement marked as Ex.P6, stating that the
deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind to
make a statement. However, PW.8’s endorsement
/signature does not appear on the dying declaration
at Ex.P14.
iii) The dying declaration was recorded on
23.09.2015 between approximately 12.40 p.m. and
1.30 p.m., whereas the statement marked as Ex.P15
was recorded later that day, at about 3.00 p.m. No
medical endorsement regarding the deceased’s state
of mind appears on Ex.P15.
iv) That, the deceased’s uncle Sri Nagaraj, a
police officer in Harihara was present in the hospital.
It is the contention that Exs.P14 and P15 was
prepared at his instance as PW 12 I.O admitted this
in his testimony.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
v) The accused remained at the place of the
incident and did not flee, which, according to the
defence, indicates that he was not the perpetrator.
vi) The prosecution has not produced the
hospital case sheet showing the date and time of the
deceased’s admission and other details.
vii) The deceased died five days after the
incident; statement by magistrate was not recorded
though reasonable time was available; according to
the defence, she might have survived had proper
treatment been provided.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State supports the judgment of
conviction and submits as follows:
i) PWs.2 and 4 have stated that the accused
habitually consumed alcohol and used to harass the
deceased.
ii) Ex.P14, the dying declaration, clearly identifies the
accused as the person responsible for the offences.
iii) Ex.P15 discloses the cruelty allegedly inflicted on
the deceased by the accused and states that he set
her on fire. PWs.3 and 4 have also supported the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
prosecution case in this regard. The prosecution
proved its case.
6. Having considered the submissions of the
parties, the following point arises for consideration:
“Whether the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court
against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 504, 506, 323 and 341 of
the Indian Penal Code suffers from any illegality
or infirmity warranting interference by this
Court?”
7. PW.10-doctor, the medical officer who
conducted the post-mortem examination, issued the post-
mortem report marked as Ex.P10. He stated that "burn
injuries were present over the body, with areas spared
over the scalp and the front and lower extremities of the
legs, and described dark-brown and yellowish patches of
burn injuries. He opined that the death was caused by
“septicaemia and toxaemia as a result of burn injuries to
an extent of 90% to 95%, superficial to deep.” In cross-
examination, it was elicited that the thumb ridges of the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
deceased were not visible at the time of the post-mortem
examination.
8. PW.1, the elder brother of the deceased,
testified that the accused was a habitual drinker and
treated the deceased badly. He stated that, when he met
the deceased in the hospital, she told him that the accused
had tortured her, threatened her with a knife, forced her
to pour kerosene on herself and set her ablaze. In cross-
examination, PW.1 admitted that his uncle, Nagaraj, was a
police officer at Harihara and had come to Chigateri
Hospital, Davanagere where the deceased was treated.
9. PW.2, the mother of the deceased, testified that
the accused consumed alcohol and frequently abused her
daughter.
10. PW.3, the sister-in-law of the accused and a
neighbour, deposed that the accused consumed alcohol
daily. On the date of the incident, she was at home when a
quarrel occurred in the deceased’s house. The deceased
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
came out of the house engulfed in flames. After the
villagers extinguished the fire with a blanket, they took
her to Bharamasagara Hospital and thereafter to Chigateri
Hospital, Davanagere. PW.3 stated that a doctor tried to
speak to the deceased, but she did not respond. The
doctor at Chigateri Hospital also attempted to speak to
her, but she did not respond.
11. PW.4, another neighbour of the deceased,
testified that the accused and the deceased frequently
quarrelled. When PW.4 asked the deceased about the
incident, the deceased stated that the accused had held a
knife, threatened her, directed her to pour kerosene on
herself and set her ablaze. PW.4 also stated that the
accused remained at the scene after the incident. In cross-
examination, she stated that the deceased was in a
condition to speak.
12. PW.5, a relative of the deceased, stated that
the accused was a habitual drunkard, quarrelled with the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
deceased and suspected her character. He also stated that
an earlier panchayat had been held, in which he
participated. He denied having given any statement to the
police.
13. PW.6 is a mahazar witness through whom
Ex.P3, the spot mahazar, was marked. The evidence
regarding the mahazar records the seizure of MO.1, a
kerosene can; MO.2, a matchbox; MO.3, a knife; and
MO.4, a piece of burnt cloth.
14. PW.7, a relative of the deceased, deposed that,
when he spoke to the deceased, she told him that on the
date of the incident the accused had shown her a knife,
threatened her, forced her to pour kerosene on herself and
set her on fire.
15. PW.8-doctor stated that, on 23.09.2015, she
was working in the casualty department of Chigateri
Hospital, Davanagere. PW.12 approached her seeking her
opinion regarding the deceased’s fitness to give a
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
statement, and she issued Ex.P6. She deposed that she
was present when the dying declaration was recorded
between 12.40 p.m. and 1.20 p.m. In cross-examination,
she admitted that the case sheet had not been produced.
It was also elicited that there was no difficulty in obtaining
the doctor’s signature on the dying declaration. She
further stated that, as the deceased was in an isolated
burns ward, no one other than PWs.11, 12 and 22 had
gone to the ward.
16. PW.10, the medical officer at Chigateri Hospital,
reiterated that the deceased had sustained burn injuries
over almost the entire body, with certain areas spared,
and opined that death was due to septicaemia and
toxaemia resulting from 90% to 95% superficial-to-deep
burn injuries. In cross-examination, it was elicited that the
thumb ridges of the deceased were not discernible at the
time of the post-mortem examination. The post-mortem
report is marked as Ex.P10.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
17. PW.11 was the Head Constable working at
Bharamasagara Police Station at the time of the incident.
In his testimony he states that he was present during the
recording of the statement of the deceased and recorded a
video with help of the station camera. After the statement,
deceased had affixed her left thumb.
18. PW.12, the Investigating Officer before whom
Exs.P14 and P15 were recorded, deposed that he had
issued a requisition seeking the doctor’s opinion regarding
the deceased’s fitness to give a statement, and that the
doctor had issued the relevant endorsement for Ex P14.
He stated that the deceased’s declaration recorded that
the accused had physically harassed her and caused her
mental torture; on the date of the incident, he had abused
and assaulted her, shown her a knife, forced her to pour
kerosene on herself and set her ablaze. PW.12 stated that
the deceased had clearly narrated these facts. He further
deposed that an FIR was not registered on the basis of
Ex.P14 and that Ex.P15 was recorded subsequently, with
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
PW.11-Constable acting as the scribe and taking the
deceased’s left thumb impression on it. Thereafter, the FIR
was registered. When the deceased died on 28.09.2015,
the police received the information and requested the
Magistrate to add Section 302 IPC. In cross-examination,
PW.12 admitted that Nagaraj was present along with the
doctor and that Exs.P14 and P15 did not bear the doctor’s
signature. He also admitted that there was no difficulty in
obtaining the doctor’s signature.
19. PW.13, M.K. Poornachandra, the Police Sub-
Inspector, deposed that on 23.09.2015 he went to the
scene of the offence and drew the spot mahazar, which
was marked as Ex.P3. Under the mahazar, MO.1, a
kerosene can; MO.2, a matchbox; MO.3, a knife; and
MO.4, a piece of burnt cloth, were recovered. In his
deposition, he stated that Exs.P14 and P15 did not bear a
doctor’s signature.
20. PW.14, D. Nagaraju, the Police Inspector, also
deposed that Exs.P14 and P15 did not bear the doctor’s
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
signature. He further stated that he had not obtained a
certificate from the doctor to verify whether the deceased
was fit to give the statement recorded as a dying
declaration.
21. PW.15 was the Head Constable working at
Bharamasagara Police Station at the time of the incident.
It was elicited from him that the fingers of the deceased’s
hands and feet had been burnt.
22. The incident occurred on 22.09.2015, and the
deceased was initially taken to Bharamasagara Hospital.
However, the prosecution has not produced any
documents relating to her treatment there. PW.3 clearly
testified that the deceased was first taken to
Bharamasagara Hospital and thereafter to Chigateri
Hospital, Davanagere. The non-production of the medical
records from Bharamasagara Hospital raises concern
regarding the prosecution case. The case sheet from
Chigateri Hospital has also not been produced, though it
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
could have disclosed the date and time of admission and
other relevant details, including the history furnished at
the hospital regarding the incident. Ex.P14 is stated to
have been recorded in the presence of CW.9-Bairathy
Siddappa and CW.10-Obalappa, neither of them was
examined by the prosecution.
23. Although the incident occurred on 22.09.2015,
the deceased remained in hospital for nearly five days and
died on 28.09.2015. Though Exs.P14 and P15 were
recorded, the Tahsildar was not summoned to record the
statement of the deceased. This omission assumes
significance, particularly because Ex.P14 was recorded on
23.09.2015 between 12.40p.m. and 1.20 p.m., while
Ex.P15 was recorded at about 3.00 p.m. on the same day.
PW.8-doctor issued Ex.P6; however, Ex.P14 does not bear
the signature of PW.8. Further, when Ex.P15 was
recorded, PW.12 did not obtain the doctor’s opinion
regarding the deceased’s state of mind. Case was
registered based on Ex.P15 and ignoring Ex.P14. PW.12-
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
I.O admitted that Nagaraj, police officer was present along
with the doctor during the statement. Nagaraj is the uncle
of the deceased which is admitted by P.W -1. These
circumstances create doubt in the mind of Court.
24. PW.4 testified that the accused remained at the
scene after the incident and did not flee. PW.15 stated
that the fingers of the deceased’s hands and feet were
burnt, raising a question as to the reliability of the thumb
impressions appearing on Exs.P14 and P15. The police
could have registered an FIR on the basis of Ex.P14;
however, for reasons best known to them, a statement
was recorded as Ex.P15. Nagaraj, a police officer attached
to Harihara Police Station, was present at the hospital, a
fact admitted by PW.1 in his testimony. The medical
evidence establishes that the deceased sustained 90% to
95% superficial-to-deep burn injuries. PW.3 testified that,
when she tried to speak to the deceased, the deceased
was not in a condition to converse. She also stated that
doctors at Bharamasagara Hospital and Chigateri Hospital
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
attempted to speak to the deceased but were unable to
converse with her. This evidence is in contrast with PW.4’s
testimony that the deceased was able to speak, and gives
rise to doubt. If the deceased was unable to converse with
the doctors, the recording of Ex.P14 between 12.40 p.m.
and 1.30 p.m. on 23.09.2015, followed by the detailed
statement at Ex.P15 at about 3.00 p.m. without a doctor’s
fitness endorsement raises questions about genuineness of
the statement.
25. It is significant that, notwithstanding the
availability of sufficient time and opportunity, the
Investigating Officer made no endeavor to secure the
presence of a Taluka Executive Magistrate for recording
the dying declaration of the deceased. The prosecution has
failed to offer any plausible or satisfactory explanation for
such omission. Though it is well settled that a dying
declaration recorded by a police officer is not rendered
inadmissible merely for want of its recording by a
Magistrate, the unexplained failure of the Investigating
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
Officer to adopt such a course, despite there being ample
opportunity, cannot be lightly brushed aside. In the facts
and circumstances of the present case, such omission
assumes considerable significance and constitutes a
circumstance casting a serious doubt on the credibility and
trustworthiness of the dying declaration. When viewed in
conjunction with the other infirmities and suspicious
circumstances emerging from the evidence on record, the
said omission materially undermines the evidentiary worth
of the dying declaration. In such circumstances, it would
be wholly unsafe to place implicit reliance upon the dying
declaration, much less to sustain a conviction solely on its
basis, unless its truthfulness and reliability are otherwise
established by cogent and convincing evidence.
26. Insofar as Ex.P15 is concerned, it is the
statement on the basis of which the FIR was registered.
Admittedly, the deceased had sustained 90% to 95% burn
injuries. In these circumstances, the prosecution was
required to establish that the deceased was in a fit
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
condition to make the statement. Significantly, the
certification given by PW.8 under Ex.P6 relates only to the
dying declaration at Ex.P14; no corresponding certification
regarding the deceased’s fitness is available in respect of
Ex.P15. Moreover, despite the claimed presence of PW.8,
her signature does not appear on that statement. Although
medical certification is not an indispensable legal
requirement, its absence, considered alongside the nature
and extent of the burn injuries and the other
circumstances on record, raises serious doubt as to
whether the deceased was fit to make Ex.P15.
Accordingly, the evidentiary value of Ex.P15 is doubtful,
and it would be unsafe to rely on it without satisfactory
evidence establishing its authenticity and reliability.
27. It is well settled that the last-seen theory
constitutes an important link in the chain of circumstantial
evidence. However, the mere circumstance that the
accused and the deceased were last seen together, by
itself, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. The
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
prosecution is required to establish that the interval
between the time when the accused and the deceased
were last seen together and the probable time of death
was so proximate as to render the possibility of
intervention by any other person highly improbable. The
said circumstance must also be considered in conjunction
with the other incriminating circumstances established by
the prosecution. Unless the circumstances so proved form
a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of
the accused and excluding every reasonable hypothesis
consistent with innocence, conviction cannot be sustained
merely on the basis of the last-seen theory.
28. Though PW.11 has deposed that the statement
of the deceased was video graphed at the time of its
recording and that the CD containing the said recording
was marked as Ex.P12 subject to objections, the
prosecution has not produced the requisite certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Mere
marking of the CD as Ex.P12, particularly when it was
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
marked subject to objections, does not dispense with the
statutory requirement of proving its admissibility in
accordance with law. In the absence of the requisite
certificate, and there being no other legally recognised
basis for its admissibility, the contents of Ex.P12 cannot be
read in evidence or relied upon to establish the
prosecution case. Consequently, Ex.P12 is liable to be
excluded from consideration while appreciating the
evidence on record.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon
independent re-appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC
beyond reasonable doubt. However, the evidence of
PWs.2, 4, 5 and 7 establishes the cruelty inflicted upon the
deceased by the accused. Consequently, the conviction of
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
of the IPC cannot be sustained and warrants interference
by this Court. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part .
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 29.12.2018 passed by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in S.C.No.28/2016,
insofar as it relates to the conviction and sentence of
the appellant-accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC, is hereby set aside .
iii. The judgment of conviction and sentence for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 341, 504,
323 and 506 IPC is confirmed . However, since the
appellant/accused has already undergone the
imprisonment for a period of 12 years which exceeds
the sentence imposed for the aforesaid offences, the
sentence stands served.
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59692-DB
CRL.A No. 460 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010071572019
iv. The bail bond executed by the appellant-accused, if
any, shall stand cancelled.
v. The appellant-accused shall be released forthwith, if
not required in any other case.
vi. The Registry shall communicate this order to the
concerned jail authority.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE
BSV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1