GANESH NAIK vs THE STATE BY KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
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. 1149 OF 2019 (C)
BETWEEN:
GANESH NAIK
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O. BAJJA NAIK
OCC: COOLIE
R/O. BOMMENAHALLI TANDA VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK
AND DISTRICT-577 514
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI VEERESHA E., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
THE STATE BY KARNATAKA
BY MAYAKONDA POLICE STATION
MAYAKONDA
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 34
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., H.C.G.P.)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 24.05.2019 AND ORDER
OF SENTENCE DATED 25.05.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN
S.C.NO.91/2017 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 07.10.2026, 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)
The present criminal appeal is preferred by the
appellant/accused challenging the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 25.05.2019 passed by the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere,
in S.C. No.91/2017, whereby the appellant/accused was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only).
2. Heard Sri. Veeresha E, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Smt. Sowmya R, learned
HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the
entire material available on record.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on
27.02.2017 at about 9.00 a.m., in a vacant place situated
in front of the house of PW.8 at Bommenahalli Village, the
accused picked up a quarrel with his mother Shantibai
(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') over her refusal
to affix her signature to the documents. When the
deceased refused to accede to his demand, the accused
allegedly pulled her saree and assaulted her on the head
with an iron rod. The deceased, who was undergoing
treatment at C.G. Hospital, Davanagere, succumbed to the
injuries on 01.03.2017 at about 7.36 p.m. Thus, the
accused committed the murder of the deceased.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
4. The first informant, PW.8 gave a complaint on
27.02.2017 that his parents were working as coolies. In
his grandfather's name Bacha Naik, they had 3/4th acre of
land. Accused wanted it to be changed to his name to
clear a loan and to sell the same, wanted signature of his
mother and there was galata by the accused and the
deceased. The accused wanted the land to himself and
was forcing the deceased to sign the document. Further, it
is stated that on 27.02.2017 he got a call around 10.30
a.m. from one Mr.Sathish Naik who had informed that on
27.02.2017 at about 9.00 a.m., when he was in front of
the house of the deceased, the accused came with an iron
rod and was quarrelling with the deceased. He saw that
the accused was abusing the deceased with filthy language
and the deceased requested her husband to call Sharada
Bai, wife of the accused as the accused was drunk. When
the deceased was going, the accused caught hold of her
saree and pulled it and assaulted her with an iron rod,
resulting in bleeding injuries. The deceased cried out of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
pain and the accused informed that as the deceased did
not sign the papers, he had threatened to kill the
deceased. Thereafter, he and husband of the deceased
took her to the Chigateri Hospital.
5. Based on the information furnished by PW.8,
the police registered a criminal case and upon completion
of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the
accused.
6. To prove the charge, the prosecution has
examined 23 witnesses as PWs.1 to 23, marked
documents as Exhibits P1 to P33 and the material objects
as MOs.1 to 4. In the statement recorded under Section
313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating
evidence appeared against him. The trial Court after
considering the evidence of PWs.8 and 10 who are the
eyewitnesses and also the evidence of PW.11, and other
documents, convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Being aggrieved by
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
the same, the accused is before this Court in the present
criminal appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused
argued that:
i. PWs.8 and 10 are interested witnesses and there
are contradictions in their evidence.
ii. PW.11 who had informed PW.4 had turned hostile.
iii. There are contradictions of timing in the evidence
of eyewitnesses.
iv. Motive is not proved and PW.12 did not support
the case of the prosecution.
v. PW.8 in his evidence had deposed that there was
no blood on the MO.1-iron rod and saree.
vi. The learned counsel has relied on judgments
Rajakhan vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
passed in
2025 INSC 167 , Govind vs. State of Haryana, in
Crl.A.No.5641/2024 and Gautam Satnami vs.
State of Chhattisgarh in Crl.A.No.1782/2026 .
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
8. Per contra, learned HCGP contends that:
i. PWs.8 and 10-eyewitnesses, though they are
relatives, their evidence cannot be brushed aside as
they were present at the time of assault.
ii. PW.13-doctor who conducted the postmortem,
corroborates the evidence of PWs.8 and 10.
iii. PW.14-doctor of CG Medical Hospital, has given
evidence in support of prosecution.
iv. Further, PW20-doctor who had treated the
deceased has also given evidence supporting the
prosecution. PW15, Doctor of SS Hospital, has given
evidence supporting the case of prosecution and has
stated that the deceased had expired on 01.03.2017.
v. PW.7-panch witness to Ex.P8-photograph though
turned hostile supports seizure of MO.1-iron rod.
vi. The prosecution has proved the case beyond
doubt and the order of conviction passed by the trial
court is just and proper.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
9. Having considered the contentions of the
appellant and the respondent, the following point arises for
consideration of this Court:
"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court
suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting
interference by this Court?"
10. The prosecution has examined PW.1, who is an
inquest Pancha to Ex. P1.PW.1, Manjunaik, the son of
CW5, has stated that it had been 8 months since
Shantabai had died and that; he had seen the body with
an injury on the left side of the head.
11. PW.4 is the complainant-son of the deceased,
the first informant, who has stated that accused and
deceased are brother and sister and there was dispute in
respect of land. When he had gone for work on
27.02.2017, he got a call around 10.30 am from one
Satish Naik-PW.11 stating that the accused had assaulted
the deceased with an iron rod and she was taken to the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
CG Hospital, Davanagere and asked to come over. He has
also mentioned that due to the land dispute the accused
scolded the deceased by using filthy language and he had
stated that he would commit her murder.
12. PW.5-uncle of the accused denied statement
made before the police. PW.6-Pancha of seizure mahazar
denied notice and seizure of MO.1, and has turned hostile.
PW.7- pancha to Ex. P8-photograph, has stated that he is
in a rented house situated near the house of the accused
and he is his uncle. He states that Ravi Naik, deceased and
PW.8 were there. Though he has turned hostile, in the
cross- examination, he has admitted that the accused was
carrying MO.1-iron rod.
13. PW.8-eyewitness states that the accused and
his wife were brother and sister and there was dispute
with regard to the land as the accused wanted to sell the
land and his wife had objected to it. The accused had
come to their house and was carrying the iron rod and
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
asked his wife to sign the papers and abused the deceased
in filthy language and pulled her saree. When he had
requested to call the wife of the accused and when she
was on the way, accused followed her and assaulted on
her head with M.O 1 and thereafter, she was taken to the
hospital for treatment. It was PW.11 who had called the
ambulance. In the course of cross-examination, the
defense has elicited that the houses of the deceased and
the accused were situated at different places. Further,
they have also elicited that due to the assault, blood had
fallen on the saree.
14. PW.10 is the wife of PW.4, who is the
eyewitness. She has stated that on the date of incident,
her father-in-law and deceased were in the house and the
accused came to the house of the deceased holding an
iron rod threatening the deceased that because she is not
signing the paper, he is unable to sell the property and the
deceased had informed the accused to call the person who
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
is purchasing the property. During that time, the accused
had abused the deceased in filthy language and forced the
deceased to sign the papers. At that time, her father-in-
law had said to the deceased to get the wife of the
accused and when she was proceeding, the accused
assaulted the accused with iron rod and the deceased fell
on the ground and thereafter, the deceased was taken to
the hospital for treatment.
15. PW.11 informed PW.4 about the incident and in
the cross-examination, he has turned hostile and it is
elicited that the lawyer who is representing the accused is
his uncle.
16. PW.12 is the agreement holder of the land and
he admits that Ex.P13 was executed by the accused, his
wife and children but the deceased had not signed the
agreement. However, he denies the execution of Ex. P15.
The said witness has turned hostile,and it is elicited that
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
on 20.04.2015, accused had executed the agreement in
his favor.
17. PW.13 is the doctor who conducted the
postmortem. The following external injuries were found on
the body of the deceased:
"A surgically sutured wound measuring 05CMx0.5 CM
skull deep (known after removal of sutures) with
intact suture material (Catgus) is present over the
left parietotermporal part of the scalp, which is
obliquely placed."
The doctor has given the opinion that the deceased died
due to "COMA" consequent upon head injury sustained. In
his evidence he has stated that he did not notice blood
stain on the MO1.
18. PW.14 is the doctor who gave first aid and
referred the deceased to a higher hospital. In Ex.P21,
there is a mention of history of assault by the accused.
19. PW.15 is the doctor/professor, at S S Hospital,
Davanagere, who has stated that on 01.03.2017,
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
deceased was admitted to the hospital with history of
assault, and that the patient was unconscious . The
deceased sustained head injury due to which she suffered
brain hemorrhage and was discharged against medical
advice .
20. PW.20 is the doctor working in C T Central
Hospital, Davanagere. He has deposed that the deceased
took first aid treatment in CG Hospital, Davanagere and
the said C G Hospital referred the deceased to their
hospital for further treatment. The deceased had
undergone CT scan, and it is noticed that the deceased
sustained left posterior frontal and temporal bone region
parachymalhaematoma, Sub archanold hemorrhage with
pneumocephalus and mild cerebral oedema. The deceased
was treated and neuro surgeon’s opinion was taken.
21. PW.17 is the Police Constable who apprehended
the accused. PW.18 is another Police Constable who
submitted FIR to the Magistrate and submitted one more
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
requisition to add offence under Section 302 of IPC. PW.19
is the Head Constable who collected MOs.1 and 2 and
submitted them to FSL.
22. PW.21 is the ASI, who registered the FIR.
PW.22 is the police officer who had investigated the
matter initially and sent a note to add Section 302 of IPC.
PW.23 is the CPI who filed the investigation.
23. The prosecution case rests primarily on the
direct evidence of eyewitnesses, PWs.8 and 10, which is
corroborated by the medical evidence on record. Both
PWs.8 and 10 have categorically deposed that the accused
came to the house of the deceased armed with an iron rod
and assaulted the deceased. Their ocular testimony finds
corroboration in the medical evidence of PW.13, the
doctor, who has opined that the death was due to "coma
consequent upon head injury sustained". Thus, the ocular
evidence is consistent with the medical evidence on record
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
and clearly establishes the homicidal nature of the
death.
24. Further, the prosecution has established that
there was a dispute between the accused and the
deceased in respect of the land and that the accused and
his family members, except the deceased, had executed
Ex.P15 in favor of PW.12. A perusal of page No.5 of
Ex.P13, the Agreement Deed, clearly discloses that the
said document bears the signatures of PW.12, the accused
and his family members, except the deceased. The fact
that the deceased had not signed the said agreement and
that there was a quarrel between the accused and the
deceased in this regard clearly establishes the motive for
the commission of the offence.
25. On careful appreciation of the evidence of
eyewitnesses PWs.8 and 10, it is clearly established that
the accused came to the house of the deceased armed
with an iron rod marked as M.O.1. The fact that the
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
accused had come armed with a deadly weapon, coupled
with the dispute arising out of the deceased's refusal to
sign the document, clearly establishes his premeditated
intention to assault the deceased. The minor discrepancies
in the testimony of PWs.8 and 10 are neither material nor
sufficient to discredit their otherwise consistent and
trustworthy evidence. Such discrepancies do not go to the
root of the prosecution case and cannot be a ground to
discard their ocular testimony. Further, Ex.P19, the post-
mortem report, establishes that the injuries sustained by
the deceased were consistent with the assault by an iron
rod such as M.O.1 and were sufficient to cause death. The
ocular testimony of PWs.8 and 10 thus finds material
corroboration in the medical evidence on record. We are
therefore of the considered opinion that the prosecution
has established the involvement of the accused in the
commission of the offence and that the minor
discrepancies pointed out by the defence do not create any
reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
26. The contention of the appellant that PWs.8 and
10 are interested witnesses is untenable. Mere relationship
of PWs.8 and 10 with the deceased is not a sufficient
ground to discard their evidence. It is beneficial to refer to
the Apex Court judgment in the case of Dalip Singh and
Others vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 , where
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - " The testimony of
an eyewitness cannot be thrown out or labeled as
inherently untrustworthy simply because they are
related to the deceased or injured party ."
27. In the present case, the occurrence having
taken place near the house of the deceased, the presence
of PWs.8 and 10, who are the husband and daughter-in-
law of the deceased respectively, at the scene of
occurrence was natural in the ordinary course of events.
Merely because the said witnesses are related to the
deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded on that
ground alone, particularly when their presence at the
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
scene of occurrence is natural and their evidence is
otherwise credible and trustworthy.
28. Further, in the present case, the evidence of the
eyewitnesses is cogent and reliable, and no material
discrepancies are forthcoming. Minor discrepancies, if any,
do not affect the credibility of their testimony.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, the
contention of the accused regarding the partisan nature of
the witnesses is, by itself, not a sufficient ground to
discard their testimony, particularly when the evidence of
the eyewitnesses finds corroboration from the other
evidence adduced by the prosecution.
30. The evidence on record finds corroboration from
the other material evidence placed on record, particularly
the medical evidence. Further, the testimony of PW.12 is
relevant insofar as he admits the execution of Ex.P13 and
acknowledges that the said document does not bear the
signature of the deceased. These aspects of his testimony
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
are required to be considered in conjunction with the other
evidence on record while assessing the evidentiary value
of Ex. P13.
31. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that there were no blood stains on the
MO.1 does not hold water as it is not a sharp weapon and
by use of the MO.1- iron rod, the deceased has sustained
injury to the head, which is a vital part, due to which she
was under coma and has succumbed to the same.
32. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajakhan v. State of Chhattisgarh , 2025 INSC 167 ;
Govind v. State of Haryana , Criminal Appeal
No.5641/2024 ; and Gautam Satnami v. State of
Chhattisgarh , Criminal Appeal No.1782/2026 , in
support of the proposition that recovery of incriminating
articles, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for conviction
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
in the absence of other reliable and corroborative
evidence.
33. In the present case, the voluntary statement of
the accused was recorded as per Ex. P27 and the said
accused has stated that he has thrown the M.O.1, which
was the iron rod, in the back portion of his house. M.O.1
was produced by the accused and the Panchanama was
also conducted as per Ex. P27. As stated supra, though
the M.O. 1 which is the iron rod has been recovered, there
is also the ocular testimony of PWs 8 and 10 which finds
corroboration from the other evidence available on record.
34. The evidence of PWs.8 and 10, when
appreciated in conjunction with the other corroborative
material on record, establishes the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction, therefore,
cannot be assailed merely on the ground of alleged
infirmities in the recovery. The said principle has also been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh and
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another ,
reported in (2021) 7 SCC 188 , wherein it was held that
recovery of the weapon used in the commission of an
offence is not a sine qua non for conviction when credible
and trustworthy eyewitness evidence is available. In the
present case, the conviction is not founded solely on the
recovery of the weapon but is principally based on the
reliable ocular testimony of PWs.8 and 10, which finds
corroboration in the other evidence on record.
Consequently, the judgments relied upon by the appellant,
which deal with the insufficiency of recovery as the sole
basis for conviction, are distinguishable on facts and do
not advance the case of the appellant.
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon
reappreciation of the evidence and perusal of the material
on record, we are of the considered opinion that the
impugned judgment and sentence of the learned Trial
Court do not suffer from any infirmity warranting
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59693-DB
CRL.A No. 1149 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010282832019
interference by this Court. Hence, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE
Bsv/Mkm