MR CHIKKEGOWDA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1614 OF 2025 (C)
BETWEEN:
1.
MR CHIKKEGOWDA
@ CHIKKAIAH
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA,
AGED 43 YEARS,
R/AT PICCHANAKERE VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562112
2. MR KUMARA P V
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS,
R/AT PICCHANAKERE VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562112
…APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. UMESH P.B., ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI. K.V. PRAKASHA,ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
KANAKAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION,
KANAKAPURA CIRCLE 562117
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II A/W;
SRI. SUDHINDRA B.S., HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC (415(2) OF
BNSS), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED
12.12.2024 IN S.C.NO.5003/2020 BY THE COURT OF THE
HONBLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA, SIT AT KANAKAPURA, CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT / ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S
302 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.10.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE 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)
This criminal appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1
and 2 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 12.7.2024 passed by The Learned II
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in
S.C. No. 5003/2020, whereby accused Nos.1 and 2 have
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and
sentenced accordingly.
2. Heard Sri Umesh P.B., learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned SPP-II for
the State
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the
deceased was allegedly behaving indecently with accused
No.3, who is the wife of accused No.1. Accused No.1 had
warned the deceased not to visit his house or speak to his
wife. Despite such warning, the deceased allegedly used to
move around on a motorcycle armed with a long,
threatening to kill accused No.1. It is further the case of
the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 3, with the common
intention of causing the death of the deceased, committed
the alleged offences on 05.11.2018 at about 6.00 p.m. at
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
Pichanakere Village. It is alleged that accused No.1
assaulted the deceased with a long on his face, head,
nose, mouth and left hand, while accused No.2 assaulted
the deceased with a club on his head. As a result of the
injuries sustained in the said assault, the deceased
succumbed to the injuries.
4. According to the prosecution, accused Nos.1
and 2 inflicted the injuries with the intention of causing the
death of the deceased, knowing that the injuries inflicted
were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. It is further alleged that accused No.3 instigated
accused Nos.1 and 2 to commit the murder of the
deceased by stating that, if the deceased was allowed to
remain alive, he would kill accused No.1 and continue to
harass his family. It is also alleged that accused No.3
stated that the deceased had brought disrepute to the
family of accused No.1.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
5. Based on the complaint lodged before the
jurisdictional police, a case was registered against the
accused. Upon completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against
accused Nos.1 to 3. The learned Sessions Judge framed
charges against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. In order to establish its case, the
prosecution examined 20 witnesses as PWs.1 to 20, got
marked 45 documents as Exs.P1 to P45 and produced 15
material objects as MOs.1 to 15. After completion of the
prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, wherein they denied the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution
evidence. The accused did not choose to adduce any
defence evidence. Upon consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions
Judge found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly passed
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence. However, accused No.3 was acquitted of the
charges levelled against her. The acquittal of accused No.3
has not been challenged by the State and has attained
finality. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the
present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS:
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its
proper perspective. It was submitted that the deceased
himself was the aggressor and had come to the house of
accused No.2 on a motorcycle, armed with a long, and
abused the mother of accused No.2. It was further
contended that the incident occurred on account of the
aggressive conduct of the deceased and that accused
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the deceased in the circumstances
arising therefrom.
6.1 Learned counsel also contended that the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from
material contradictions and omissions and that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused
Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,
learned counsel sought to allow the appeal and set aside
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR-II:
7. Per contra, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and
submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of
accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt through the
direct evidence of eyewitnesses PWs.2, 3 and 20. It was
submitted that the testimony of the eyewitnesses is duly
corroborated by the medical evidence, seizure of material
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
objects and other evidence available on record. It was
further contended that the defence version that the
deceased himself was the aggressor is not supported by
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor therefore sought
dismissal of the appeal.
POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and upon careful examination of the material
on record, the following point arises for consideration:
“ Whether the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 have
made out any grounds warranting interference with
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?”
9. PW.1, Rajesh, the brother of the deceased, has
deposed that on 05.11.2018, at about 6:00 p.m., while his
brother was returning home after completing his work in
the agricultural land, accused Nos.1 and 2, along with
Pushpalatha and Jayamma, stopped him and picked up a
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
quarrel with him in front of the house of accused No.2. He
has stated that he was approaching the place of
occurrence from another direction and, upon hearing the
commotion, proceeded towards the spot. At that time, he
witnessed accused No.1 assaulting the deceased with a
chopper on his face, head, mouth, eyes and chest, while
accused No.2 assaulted the deceased on his head with a
club. He has further deposed that when he reached the
spot, accused No.1 had already assaulted the deceased
and had stepped back; however, he returned and
assaulted the deceased again. He also witnessed accused
No.2 assaulting the deceased on his face with a club. He
has stated that PW.20 and PW.2 were present during the
assault, along with his mother, Yashoda, who was
returning home with her cattle. After the incident, accused
Nos.1 and 2 left the scene of occurrence on a motorcycle.
9.1 PW.1 has further deposed that accused No.1
and the deceased had disputes relating to the commission
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
involved in the sale of cattle. He has also stated that
accused No.1 was working as a lorry driver for PW.2, who
was engaged in the sale of sand, and that the said lorry
had to pass through the land belonging to the deceased,
which the deceased was not permitting. He has further
stated that approximately three months prior to the
incident, accused No.1 had quarrelled with the deceased.
10. PW.2, Sathisha, has deposed that on
05.11.2018, at about 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., while he
was returning home from work, he noticed a quarrel
taking place in front of the house of accused No.2. At that
time, the deceased was sitting on his motorcycle. He has
further deposed that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the
deceased with an iron chopper and a club on his head,
neck, face, ears, nose and chest. He has stated that PW.1,
PW.3, PW.4 and PW.10 were also present at the spot.
After the incident, accused Nos.1 and 2 took the iron
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
chopper and the club with them and left the scene of
occurrence.
11. PW.3, Shivalingaiah, has deposed that on
05.11.2018, at about 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., while he
was returning home after completing his agricultural work
in the fields, he was passing in front of the house of
accused No.2. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 were
quarrelling with the deceased. By the time he reached the
spot, the deceased had already been assaulted and had
fallen to the ground. When he attempted to approach the
deceased, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased on his
mouth and head with an iron chopper, followed by accused
No.2 assaulting the deceased on his head with a club. He
has further stated that PW.1, PW.4 and PW.10 were
present at the spot at that time. After the assault, accused
Nos.1 and 2 took the iron chopper and the club, boarded
their motorcycle and left the scene of occurrence. He has
also deposed that accused No.1 and the deceased had
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
previously quarrelled on two to three occasions in
connection with disputes relating to the sale of cows,
brokerage and a motorcycle.
12. PW.6, Suresh, has deposed that accused No.1
and the deceased were initially on good terms. However,
owing to disputes relating to the sale of cows and a
motorcycle, their relationship became strained, resulting in
quarrels between them. He has further stated that on the
date of the incident, he was at his house watching
television. He came to know about the murder through his
mother, who informed him that the deceased had been
murdered by accused Nos.1 and 2. Upon proceeding to the
scene of occurrence, he noticed the body of the deceased
lying on the ground. He has also stated that the father of
accused No.2, who is physically challenged, was sitting in
the portico of the house of accused No.2.
13. PW.9, Puttaiah, has deposed that he
accompanied the police as a witness to the seizure
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
mahazar drawn in respect of M.O.9 to M.O.11, namely, the
iron chopper, club and dhoti. He has stated that the said
material objects were lying near a fence at Picchanakere
Lake, situated near Rangayana Ragas Estate. According to
him, accused Nos.1 and 2 led the police to the said place
and showed them the objects allegedly used in the
assault. The said seizure mahazar has been marked as
Ex.P.5.
14. PW.14, Dr. Sumanth K.J., has stated that upon
examination of the dead body, he noticed multiple deep
lacerated wounds over the right frontal and temporal
regions of the scalp, along with a fresh crush injury over
the lower part of the face. He also noticed a fracture of the
anterior aspect of the mandibular bone, with deep
lacerated wounds measuring approximately 5 x 4 x 5 cm
and 3 x 4 x 4 cm over the left anterior chest, about 3 cm
from the mid-clavicular line, as well as over the left
clavicular line. Upon examination of the cranium and spinal
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
canal, he noticed a depressed fracture of the right frontal
temporal bone. The membranes were found intact and
pale. He also noticed extradural haemorrhage on the right
side and subdural haemorrhage in the frontoparietal
region. The brain and spinal cord were found intact and
pale. He further noticed dislocation and fracture of the
lower jaw and a depressed fracture of the right
frontotemporal region of the skull. He has further admitted
that in the post-mortem report, marked as Ex.P.9, he has
not specifically mentioned that the injuries sustained by
the deceased could have been caused by the iron chopper
and the club, which were marked as M.O.9 and M.O.10,
respectively.
15. PW.17, Dr. Radha, Assistant Director, Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, has stated that she received
13 material objects from the Kanakapura District Police
Station for examination. Upon examination of the said
material objects, she noticed the presence of bloodstains
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
on M.Os.1, 2 and 4 to 13. She has further stated that the
blood group detected on the said material objects was 'O'
blood group.
16. PW.20, eyewitness-Ramalingegowda,
hasdeposed that on 05.11.2018, between 6:00 p.m. and
6:30 p.m., while he was proceeding towards his house on
his motorcycle after finishing his work, he passed by the
house of PW.5 and heard a quarrel taking place. He has
stated that he first went to his house, parked his
motorcycle and then returned to the spot. Upon returning,
he saw accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting the deceased, who
was lying on the ground. According to him, accused No.1
was inflicting blows on the neck and face of the deceased
with an iron chopper, while accused No.2 was assaulting
him with a club, as he felt uneasy on seeing the incident
he left the place.
17. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the
prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence of
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
PW.1. However, PW.1 is not an eyewitness to the
occurrence. He was the first informant and based on his
complaint law was set in motion. Therefore, the evidence
of PW.1 cannot be treated as direct evidence regarding the
actual assault committed upon the deceased or the
individual participation of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the
commission of the offence. The evidentiary value of PW.1’s
testimony is necessarily confined to those facts which are
within his personal knowledge and are otherwise legally
admissible. Thus, the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2
cannot be founded upon the testimony of PW.1 insofar as
the actual occurrence is concerned. The prosecution case
regarding the assault upon the deceased is required to be
examined principally on the basis of the direct evidence of
eyewitnesses PWs.2, 3 and 20, along with the medical and
other corroborative evidence available on record.
APPRECIATION OF EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE:
18. We have given consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
have carefully re-appreciated the entire oral and
documentary evidence available on record. The
prosecution case principally rests upon the direct evidence
of eyewitnesses PWs.2, 3 and 20. On careful scrutiny of
their evidence, we find that these witnesses have spoken
about the occurrence and the involvement of accused
Nos.1 and 2 in the commission of the alleged offence.
According to the prosecution, accused No.1 assaulted the
deceased with a long on his face, head, nose, mouth and
left hand, while accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with
a club on his head. The evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 20 is
required to be appreciated with reference to the specific
overt acts attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2.
19. Upon such appreciation, we find that their
testimony regarding the material particulars of the assault
is consistent and trustworthy. Nothing material has been
elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their
testimony regarding the participation of accused Nos.1 and
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
2 in the assault upon the deceased. Merely because
certain minor discrepancies or omissions are found in their
evidence, the same cannot be a ground to discard their
otherwise credible and trustworthy testimony. It is well
settled that minor discrepancies or omissions which do not
affect the substratum of the prosecution case are not fatal
to the prosecution.
20. It is the case of the prosecution that the
deceased was behaving indecently with accused No.3, who
is the wife of accused No.1. It is further alleged that
accused No.1 had warned the deceased not to visit his
house or speak to his wife. Despite such warning, the
deceased allegedly continued to move around on a
motorcycle armed with a long and threatened to kill
accused No.1. These circumstances have been relied upon
by the prosecution as furnishing the motive for the
commission of the offence.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
21. It is well settled that where the prosecution
case rests upon reliable direct evidence of eyewitnesses,
failure to establish motive is not necessarily fatal to the
prosecution case. In the present case, the prosecution has
relied upon the direct evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 20
regarding the assault committed by accused Nos.1 and 2.
Therefore, the question of motive assumes a corroborative
significance and the prosecution case is required to be
determined principally on the strength and credibility of
the direct evidence available on record.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
22. Insofar as the homicidal death of the deceased is
concerned, the prosecution has examined PW.14, the
doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on
the dead body of the deceased and issued the post-
mortem report marked as Ex.P9. PW.14, in his evidence,
has stated that the death of the deceased was due to
cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to haemorrhagic shock
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
consequent upon multiple grievous injuries sustained by
the deceased.
23. The evidence of PW.14, coupled with the post-
mortem report at Ex.P9, establishes that the deceased had
sustained multiple grievous injuries which resulted in his
death. The nature of the injuries and the cause of death,
as spoken to by PW.14, lend corroboration to the
prosecution case regarding the assault committed upon
the deceased. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution
has examined PWs.2, 3 and 20 as eyewitnesses to the
occurrence. Their evidence regarding the assault
committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 finds corroboration
from the medical evidence of PW.14 and the injuries noted
in Ex.P9. Thus, the ocular evidence is supported by the
medical evidence on material particulars. On careful
consideration of the evidence of PW.14 and the post-
mortem report at Ex.P9, in conjunction with the testimony
of eyewitnesses PWs.2, 3 and 20, we are of the considered
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
opinion that the prosecution has established that the death
of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
24. The prosecution has also examined PW.17, the
Forensic Science Laboratory expert, who examined the
articles forwarded for forensic examination and issued the
FSL report. PW.17, in her evidence, has stated that upon
examination of the articles received by her, she detected
blood belonging to group ‘O’ on the relevant articles. The
prosecution has also relied upon the seizure of MOs.9 and
12 under Ex.P5 mahazar.
25. The evidence of PW.17 and the FSL report are
required to be appreciated along with the seizure evidence
and the testimony of eyewitnesses PWs.2, 3 and 20. To
the extent that the prosecution has established the
connection between the bloodstained articles, the
deceased and the occurrence, the forensic evidence lends
further corroboration to the prosecution case. It is
significant to note that the conviction of accused Nos.1
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
and 2 does not rest solely upon the recovery of material
objects or the FSL report. The prosecution has adduced
direct evidence through eyewitnesses PWs.2, 3 and 20,
which is further supported by the medical evidence of
PW.14 and the forensic evidence of PW.17.
26. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
vehemently contended that the deceased himself was the
aggressor and that he had come to the house of accused
No.2 on a motorcycle, armed with a long, and abused the
mother of accused No.2. However, on careful scrutiny of
the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs.2, 3 and 20, we find
that none of these witnesses has supported the defence
version that the deceased was the aggressor or that he
had initiated the assault upon accused Nos.1 and 2.
27. The defence has not been able to elicit any
material admission in the cross-examination of these
witnesses to substantiate its contention that the deceased
had come to the house of accused No.2 with an intention
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
to assault the accused or his family members. In the
absence of any supporting material on record, the
contention urged by learned counsel for the appellants
that the deceased himself was the aggressor cannot be
accepted.
28. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that
the deceased had come to the house of accused No.2
armed with a long and had abused his mother, the same,
by itself, would not justify the subsequent assault
committed by accused Nos.1 and 2. It is significant to note
that, even according to the defence version, during the
assault made by accused No.2, the chopper carried by the
deceased had fallen to the ground. Once the deceased was
disarmed, and in the absence of any other circumstance
indicating a continuing threat, there was no longer any
reasonable apprehension of imminent danger from the
said weapon to accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the
subsequent assault upon the deceased cannot be justified.
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
29. It is well settled that the right of private
defence is essentially a defensive right and cannot be
invoked as a pretext for inflicting injuries upon a person
after the apprehension of danger has ceased. The right
extends only so long as the reasonable apprehension of
danger continues. In the present case, even if the defence
version is accepted to the extent that the deceased was
initially armed with a chopper, the fact that the weapon
had fallen to the ground during the occurrence, coupled
with the absence of material indicating any continuing
threat, negatives the plea that the subsequent assault was
necessary for the protection of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Therefore, the plea of private defence urged on behalf of
the appellants is devoid of merit and is liable to be
rejected.
30. Upon careful re-appreciation of the evidence of
eyewitnesses PWs.2, 3 and 20, coupled with the medical
and other corroborative evidence available on record, we
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
find that the prosecution has established the involvement
of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the commission of the offence.
The prosecution case is that accused No.1 assaulted the
deceased with a iron chopper on his face, head, nose,
mouth and left hand, while accused No.2 assaulted the
deceased with a club on his head. The evidence of
eyewitnesses PWs.2, 3 and 20 regarding the assault
committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 finds corroboration
from the medical evidence of PW.14 and the post-mortem
report at Ex.P9.
31. The nature of the weapons used, the vital parts
of the body targeted and the multiple grievous injuries
sustained by the deceased clearly establish the intention of
accused Nos.1 and 2 to cause such bodily injuries as were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The medical evidence further establishes that the
deceased succumbed to cardiorespiratory arrest secondary
to haemorrhagic shock consequent upon multiple grievous
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
injuries. The evidence of PW.17, the FSL expert, regarding
the detection of blood belonging to group ‘O’ on the
articles subjected to forensic examination, together with
the seizure of MOs.9 and 12 under Ex.P5, lends further
corroboration to the prosecution case to the extent that
the connection of those articles with the occurrence is
established. Having regard to the nature of the assault,
the weapons used, the vital parts of the body targeted and
the medical evidence establishing the cause of death, we
are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has
established the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC beyond
reasonable doubt.
32. On careful re-appreciation of the entire oral and
documentary evidence available on record, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has established
the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
Though the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
PW.1, he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. However,
the prosecution has examined PWs.2, 3 and 20, who are
eyewitnesses to the incident and whose testimony
regarding the material particulars of the assault is
consistent and trustworthy. Their evidence finds
corroboration from the medical evidence of PW.14, the
post-mortem report at Ex.P9 and the forensic evidence of
PW.17. The seizure of material objects under Ex.P5 also
constitutes corroborative evidence, subject to their
established connection with the occurrence.
33. The contention urged by learned counsel for the
appellants that the deceased himself was the aggressor is
not substantiated by the evidence on record. Even
otherwise, the circumstances relied upon by the defence
do not establish that accused Nos.1 and 2 were justified in
continuing the assault upon the deceased in exercise of
the right of private defence. On re-appreciation of the
entire oral and documentary evidence, we are of the
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61407-DB
CRL.A No. 1614 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010522182025
considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has
rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded the
judgment of conviction against accused Nos.1 and 2 for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. We do not
find any illegality, perversity or material infirmity in the
findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the point raised for
consideration is answered in the Negative .
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal preferred by accused Nos.1 and
2 is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE
Bsv/MKM