M.NARAYANASWAMY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2015 (C)



BETWEEN:


M. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
(AT PRESENT AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS)
MANCHANDA HALLI KOLAR TALUK,
PRESENTLY R/AT DEVALAPURA VILLAGE,
MYSURU TALUK.
…APPELLANT








(BY SRI. A.N. PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. YOUNOUS ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MYSORE SOUTH POLICE,
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENT


Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:16.6.2015, PASSED BY THE

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015



PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE, IN
S.C.NO.147/2014- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 307 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated
16.06.2015 passed in SC No.147 of 2014 by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge at Mysore (for short, the "trial
Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that Mysore
South Police, laid charge-sheet against accused for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. It is
alleged by the prosecution that on 16.03.1983 at about 5:45
am in Devalapura Village, accused attempted to commit the
murder of his wife-Lakshmidevamma and stabbed her with
knife on her abdomen, causing grievous hurt. Thereby accused

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015



committed the offence punishable and Section 307 of Indian
Penal Code.

4. As the investigating officer has not submitted the
Charge-sheet within the appropriate time, the accused was
released on statutory bail with conditions. Thereafter, accused
had appeared before the Court after 28 years. Then, this
matter was taken as long pending case and accused was
secured on 13.02.2014 and was remanded to judicial custody.
Upon hearing, the trial Court framed charges against the
accused for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The
same was read over and explained to the accused. Having
understood the same accused pleaded, not guilty and claimed
to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined 5 witnesses as PWs1 to 5, got marked 5 documents
as Exhibits P1 to P5. No material objects were marked. On
closure of prosecution side evidence statement of the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Accused totally
denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him.
However, he did not lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
On hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial Court

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015



convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section
307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.30,000/-. Being
aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, appellant is before the Court in this appeal.

5. The appellant has urged the following grounds:
" i. The impugned Judgement is quite contrary to Law,
facts and circumstances of the case, hence
deserves to be set aside.

ii. The impugned Judgment and order is quite
erroneous and hence liable to be set aside.

iii. It is further submitted that the doctor has not been
examined in the above case to prove the injury
would attract an offence under section 307 IPC.

iv. It is further submitted that the victim has been
examined as Pw-4, who is none other than the wife
of the appellant.

v. It is further submitted that Pw-1 the complainant
and Pw-2 and Pw-3 the mahazar's witness have
also not supported the case of the prosecution and
termed as hostile.

vi. It is further submitted that, the doctor nor the
investigating officer has been examined in the
above case.

vii. It is further submitted that for the sake of
arguments even if the alleged incident is accepted,
it was an out come of a petty quarrel between
husband and wife and not pre-planned with any
intention or motive.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015




viii. It is further submitted that the appellant has served
pre-trial sentence of more than 1 year and 7
months.

ix. It is further submitted that the appellant is aged
about 70 years.

x. It is submitted that true genesis of the case has
been suppressed and a false case has been foisted
against the appellant and others.

xi. It is further submitted that evidence of the
witnesses is not on par with their statements
given before the police and there are lot of
improvements made on vital aspects which have
not been taken into consideration by the trial court.

xii. It is further submitted that there is no legal
evidence to warrant a conviction.

xiii. It is further submitted that, the learned sessions
judge have failed to take into consideration the
contradictions, omissions and improvements made
in the above case.

xiv. It is further submitted that on the whole the
Judgement of the Court below is quite contrary to
Law, facts and circumstance of the case, hence the
same needs to be set aside."
On all the above grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.

6. On the other hand, Sri Nageshwarappa, learned
HCGP appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that
the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and
record in accordance with law and facts, and there is no ground

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015



for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, he sought for
dismissal of appeal.

7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of
records, the following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the appellant has made out ground for
interference with the impugned Judgment of
conviction and order on sentence?
2. What order?

8. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: in the affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
Regarding Point No.1

9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.03.1983
at 5:45 am, the accused with an intention to commit murder of
his wife, stabbed with knife on her abdomen and caused
grievous hurt. The accused was produced before the Court on
17.03.1983 and was remanded to judicial custody. On
18.06.1983, the application was filed under Section 167(2) of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015



Cr.PC for grant of statutory bail, as the investigating officer
failed to file charge-sheet within the prescribed time and the
same was allowed by the Court. Thereafter, the investigating
officer has not submitted charge-sheet till 15.11.1984. After
filing charge-sheet, the case was registered in CC No.3964 of
1984 and summons was issued to the accused. Accused did
not appear before the Court and hence Non-bailable warrant
was issued. On 16.01.1986 proclamation was issued against
the accused. Thereafter, the case was posted for evidence
under Section 299 of Cr.PC. The committal Court has issued
summons to CWs1 to 3. Only one witness was examined and
the trial Court has closed the case. Thereafter, the committal
Court has submitted letter to the sessions Court to permit the
committal Court to transfer the case as long pending cases.
After passing this order on 26.07.1986, the concerned official
has not submitted the report to the Court of sessions. Even the
concerned Presiding Officer has not taken any steps till
13.02.2014. On 13.02.2014, the accused was produced before
the Court and was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter,
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions was

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015



registered as SC No.147 of 2014. The accused was remanded
to judicial custody and the accused was in custody till the
disposal of the case, and after conviction also, the accused was
in judicial custody till 7.08.2015.

10. To prove the guilt of the accused, 5 witnesses were
examined as PWs1 to 5 and 5 documents marked as Exhibits
P1 to P5.

11. PW1-Puttalingappa and PW2-B.S. Shivanna, said to
be the attesters to mahazar, have not supported the case of
the prosecution. PW3-Shivanna has not supported the case of
the prosecution. PW4-Lakshmidevamma said to be the
complainant and injured, has deposed in her evidence that the
accused is her husband. Her marriage was solomnized about 32
to 33 years back at Vemagal Village. She is an illiterate and
she has no issues. After her marriage, she and accused were
residing in Manchadalli in her parents house for sometime, and
after that, they were residing for two months at Doddaballapur.
She do not know the occupation of the accused. Accused took
her to Mysore and they were residing their near Lakshmi
Talkies. Thereafter, accused took her to 7 different villages and

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015



resided there. She do not know the names of villages.
Accused was not maintaining her properly and she used to
make gallata and compelled the accused to take her to her
village. On the date of incident, at about 5 am, accused told
her to be ready to go to her village and stabbed her abdomen
with knife. She held the hands of the accused tightly and
became unconscious. She regained her consciousness in
Mysore Hospital. Somebody had shifted her to the hospital.
She was in the hospital for 10 days. She do not know about the
clothes that she wore at that time of incident. This witness was
treated as partly hostile witness with the permission court, and
was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.

PW5-M Basavayya, Assistant Inspector, has
12.
deposed as to part of his investigation.

13. On careful examination of the entire material on
record, the Court has noticed that the learned Magistrate of
committal Court has not complied with the mandatory
provisions of Sections 82, 83 and 299 of Cr.PC. The learned
Magistrate has not recorded the evidence of all the material
witnesses under Section 299 of Cr.PC before passing the order

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015



for transferring this case as long pending case (LPC). The
learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of only one
witness-Lingaraju, who has filed the complaint as per Exhibit
P1. The learned magistrate has not put his signature on the
statement recorded under Section 299 of Cr.PC. The learned
Magistrate has also not taken the signature of witness
Lingaraju. Even after the passing of order transferring the case
as LPC, the learned magistrate has not submitted letter to the
learned Sessions Judge for permission to transfer this case as
LPC. Since 1986 to 2014, the learned Magistrate has not issued
NBW to the accused.

14. The evidence of PW4-injured has not been
substantiated by any other witnesses. The wound certificate of
the injured not got marked. The Medical Officer who has
treated the injured also not examined. The weapon said to have
been used for commission of offence, has not been seized by
the investigating officer. The investigating officer has not
explained anything as to non-seizure of weapon used for
commission of offence.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015




It is settled principle of law that burden lies upon
15.
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. In the case on hand, except the oral say of
PW4, prosecution has not placed any evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused. The learned Magistrate has not taken the
signature of the witness-Lingaraju i.e. the complainant, at the
time of recording statement under Section 299 of Cr.PC. The
trial Court has not observed the same and in the Judgment it is
observed that the complaint Exhibit P1 was marked. Learned
Magistrate has also not put his signature on the deposition of
the complainant which is recorded under Section 299 of Cr.PC.
Hence there is no legal sanctity to this statement recorded by
the Court.. In this backdrop, viewed from any angle, I do not
find any legal evidence to convince the accused for the alleged
offence. However, the trial Court has convicted accused without
evidence. Accordingly, the trial Court has failed to appreciate
the evidence and record in accordance with love and facts.
Hence I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58239
CRL.A No. 769 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010322172015



Regarding Point No.2:
16. For the reasons afore, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Judgement of conviction dated 16.06.2015 and
Order on Sentence dated 20.06.2015 passed in
SC No.147 of 2014 by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge at Mysuru, is set aside;
iii) Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code;
iv) Bail bond of accused and surety shall stand
cancelled;
v) The trial Court is directed to refund the fine
amount if any deposited by the appellant.

Registry is directed to transmit the trial Court records
along with the copy of this judgment, to the concerned Court.

Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
LNN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66