ALLA BAKASH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1964 OF 2019 (C-)
BETWEEN:
ALLA BAKASH
S/O ZAHEERUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT KYALANURU VILLAGE,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK - 563102
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VEMAGAL POLICE STATION,
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560001
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. K VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II A/W;
SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC PLEASED SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
25.06.2019 AND SENTENCE DATED 26.06.2019 PASSED BY
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN
S.C.NO.138/2018, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 201 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
This appeal is preferred by the accused against the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in
SC.No.138/2018 by the Court of the I Additional Sessions
Judge at Kolar.
2. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated
25.06.2019, the trial Court convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2.1. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year.
2.2. For the offence punishable under Section 201 of
IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine
of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for one year.
3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that, on
19.04.2018 at about 11.30 p.m., the accused committed
the murder of his wife, Mrs.Shanuma in the rented house
situated at Kyalanuru village, by slitting her throat with a
knife. After committing the murder, he locked the door of
the house with intent to screen himself from legal
punishment and thereby committed the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
4. The law was set into motion by Ameerjan, brother
of the deceased. The complaint is marked as Ex.P1. As per
the complaint averments, the deceased Shanuma had
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
married the accused about 23 years prior to the incident.
The accused was quarrelling with her and in this regard,
he was advised by the complainant and panchayaths were
also held. In-spite of that, the accused continued
quarrelling with the deceased. Hence, about a year prior,
the brothers of the deceased had brought the couple to
Kyalanuru village and provided them a rented house
belonging to one Sanaulla Khan and advised both of them
to live cordially. Even thereafter, the accused was
quarreling with the deceased. About ten days prior to the
date of incident, when both of them had visited the house
of the complainant, he advised them to lead a cordial life.
On 23.04.2018 at about 3.00 p.m, the accused came to
the house of complainant's sister, Gulzar (PW.4) and told
her that about 5 to 6 days prior, he had committed the
murder of his wife Shanuma and thereafter, locked the
door of the house. PW.4, informed the complainant and
others about the same and on the next day i.e. on
24.04.2018 at about 6.30 a.m., they went to the house of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
the accused and found the door of the house was locked.
The complainant's brother removed the tiles and noticed
foul smell emanating from the house. Thereafter, they
broke open the lock, went inside the house and found the
dead body of Shanuma in a decomposed state.
5. On the complaint of Ameerjan (PW.1), brother of
the deceased, a case was registered against the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of
IPC. The spot mahazar-Ex.P2 and inquest mahazar-Ex.P9
were conducted. The dead body was subjected to
postmortem examination.
6. The accused was arrested on 25.04.2018. His
voluntary statement-Ex.P22 was recorded and at his
instance, bloodstained knife and clothes were seized. On
completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
7. As per the P.M. Report and the evidence of the
Doctor, the cause of death could not be opined as the
body was in an advanced state of decomposition.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
However, PW.15-Doctor who conducted the autopsy, has
stated that the time since death could be between four
days to one week prior to examination. He opined that,
since the skin and soft tissues over the head, face and
neck were missing exposing to underlying bones, the
opinion regarding the knife could not be furnished.
However, stated that death may be caused if a person is
assaulted by the type of knife (MO.5) examined by him.
The P.M report is marked as Ex.P14 and the opinion
regarding the weapon is marked as Ex.P16.
8. The entire case of the prosecution rests on
circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has taken into
consideration the conduct of the accused, his abscondence
and the evidence regarding the accused and the deceased
residing together and held that the same has been proved
by cogent evidence. The explanation offered by the
accused while he was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC
was also taken note of wherein, the accused had stated
that the deceased was suffering from breathing problem
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
and as such her brothers had taken her to Kyalanuru
village for treatment and later she had not returned for
about two years. The trial Court held that there is
absolutely no corroboration with the suggestion and the
said statement of the accused. Based on the oral and
documentary evidence on record, including the recovery
evidence and the conduct of the accused, the trial Court
held that it can safely be inferred that the accused alone,
who has committed the murder of his wife Shanuma by
slitting her throat with a knife.
9. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned
counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the
prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the
deceased died a homicidal death. The Doctor who
conducted the postmortem examination has clearly opined
that the body was in an advanced state of decomposition
and therefore, he could not opine the cause of death.
Hence, he contended that when the prosecution fails to
establish the cause of death, the accused is entitled to the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
benefit of doubt. He further contended that the
prosecution has mainly relied on the extra-judicial
confession made by the accused. However, extra-judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence and in the present
case, said evidence cannot be believed, in view of the
unnatural conduct of the witnesses. PW.2 to PW.5, in-spite
of the alleged extra-judicial confession made before them
by the accused, have not gone to the house of the
deceased immediately, which goes to show that they have
created a story that the accused had confessed before
PW.4, sister of the deceased. He further contended that
the arrest of the accused itself is doubtful, since in the
seized articles, the date is mentioned as ‘24.04.2018’ as
admitted by PW.18, whereas the accused was arrested on
26.04.2018.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that the accused took a specific defense that
after the deceased was brought to Kyalanuru village, she
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
was staying alone in the house, whereas the accused was
residing at Sidlaghatta and in view of the said consistent
defense taken by the accused even while his statement
was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, it cannot be held
that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are
of a conclusive nature, showing that in all human
probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
11. Per contra, the learned SPP-II has contended
that the wife of the accused was found dead inside the
house and the material on record clearly establishes that
the accused and the deceased were living together. Apart
from PW.2 to PW.5, the relatives of the deceased, the
evidence of the independent witnesses namely, PW6 to
PW.8 and PW.14 also establishes that the accused and the
deceased were living together in the house, where the
deceased was found dead.
12. The learned SPP-II further contended that, PW.5
had seen the accused quarrelling with the deceased and at
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
that time, the accused was armed with a knife. Further
PW14 had seen blood stains on the shirt of the accused,
when he went to call him for work. He further contended
that after the arrest of the accused, bloodstained knife and
clothes were seized and the cumulative effect of the entire
evidence clearly establishes the charges levelled against
the accused. He therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal by
confirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the trial Court.
13. PW1 is the brother of the deceased. He is the
first informant. As per the complaint, the accused and the
deceased were married for 23 years and they were living
in Sidlaghatta. The accused was quarrelling with the
deceased, hence, PW1 and other relatives of the deceased
had advised the accused and even conducted
panchayaths. In-spite of that, the accused continued
quarreling and ill-treating the deceased. Hence, they were
brought to Kyalanuru Village and provided a rented house.
The complaint averments further reveal that on
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
23.04.2018 at about 03:00 p.m., the accused went to the
house of PW.4, the sister of the deceased and informed
her that about 4 to 5 days back, he had committed the
murder of his wife Shanuma. In turn, PW.4 informed the
same to her mother (PW.3). Thereafter, they informed
the matter to the complainant, after he returned to the
house in the night. They decided that they would go to the
house of the accused on the next day morning. On the
following day at about 06:30 a.m., they went to the house
of the accused and found that the door of the house was
locked. The complainant and his brother removed the tiles
and noticed foul smell emanating from the house.
Thereafter, they broke open the lock and went inside the
house, wherein they saw the dead body of Shanuma.
14. From the oral and documentary evidence placed
on record by the prosecution, it is quite clear that the
prosecution is relying on the following circumstances to
establish the guilt of the accused:
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
i. Homicidal death;
ii. Motive;
iii. The accused and the deceased were living together
and the last seen theory;
iv. Recovery of the dead body from inside the house,
and
v. Conduct of the accused.
15. PW.1 to PW.4 have deposed about the accused
quarreling with the deceased and subjecting her to
physical and mental harassment. They have stated that
panchayaths were held and the accused was advised and
in-spite of that, he used to quarrel with the deceased.
Their evidence further discloses that initially the accused
and the deceased were living in Sidlaghatta and about a
year prior to the incident, they were provided a rented
house in Kyalanuru village and both of them were staying
together in the said house.
16. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the accused was residing in Sidlaghatta and
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
only the deceased came to Kyalanuru and she was residing
alone. PW.1 to PW.4 have denied the said suggestion. It is
pertinent to see that the prosecution has got examined the
owner of the house as PW7. His evidence clearly goes to
show that since 8 months prior to the date of incident, the
accused and the deceased were residing as tenants in his
house. He has deposed that the accused was quarrelling
with the deceased and that he had even warned the
accused that if he did not stop quarreling with the
deceased, he would vacate them.
17. The evidence of PW5, a neighbour, goes to show
that he saw the accused quarreling with the deceased on
19.04.2018 at about 11:00 p.m. His house is situated
opposite to the house of the accused. He has stated that
when he went near the house of the accused, he saw the
accused assaulting the deceased with hands and kicking
her and at that time he was holding a knife and
threatening the deceased that he would kill her. PW5
advised the accused and then returned to his house. He
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
has stated that after about 3, 4 days, there was some foul
smell emanating from the house of the accused.
18. The evidence of PW.14 is also very relevant. He
is a resident of Kyalanuru Village, and the accused was
working under him. He has deposed that the accused was
irregular and was not coming to the work properly. On
19.04.2018, the accused had worked, but on 20.04.2018
he had not come for work. Hence, he had gone to the
house of the accused to call him for work. At that time, he
noticed the shirt, MO.6 worn by the accused was
bloodstained. He has identified the said shirt, MO6.
19. The Doctor-PW.15, who conducted the autopsy
could not opine as to the cause of death. He has stated
that the cause of death could not be opined as the body
was in an advanced state of decomposition. However, he
has stated that the time since death could have been from
four days to one week. The postmortem was conducted on
24.04.2018 between 02:45 p.m. to 03:45 p.m. The
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
accused was seen quarrelling with the deceased, by PW5
on 19.04.2018 at about 11:00 p.m.. At that time, PW5
had noticed him holding a knife. On the next day, PW14
noticed the accused wearing a blood-stained shirt. The
time of death mentioned in the postmortem report and the
evidence of the Doctor, PW15 would corroborate the
evidence of the above witnesses.
20. The defense taken by the accused that he was
not staying in Kyalanuru village, cannot be accepted in
view of the consistent evidence of PW.1 to PW.7 and
PW14. The evidence of the said witnesses clearly
establishes that the accused and the deceased were
residing in the same house, where the deceased was found
dead. The fact that the house was locked and the accused
was absconding further strengthen the prosecution case.
After the arrest of the accused, a bloodstained knife and
bloodstained clothes were seized. The Investigating Officer
has stated that the accused was arrested on 25.04.2018
at about 11:00 p.m., the seizure mahazar/Ex.P13 was
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
conducted on 26.04.2018. PW18, in the cross-examination
has stated that by mistake, he mentioned the date on the
sealed cover of the seized articles as "24.04.2018". That
discrepancy by itself will not dent the case of the
prosecution.
21. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the seized articles, the bloodstained shirt
(MO6) and bloodstained knife (MO5) were not sent for FSL
and therefore, the recovery is ineffective and the said
circumstance will not incriminate the accused. The fact
that the bloodstained shirt was seized at the instance of
the accused and PW14 noticing the accused wearing a
bloodstained shirt is a very relevant circumstance. The
accused has failed to explain as to how his shirt was
bloodstained. Hence, merely because the seized articles
were not sent to FSL, is not a ground to disbelieve the
recovery evidence. Insofar as the bloodstained knife is
concerned, the doctor has not given any opinion regarding
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
the cause of death and therefore, the seizure of knife is
not relevant.
22. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied
on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Nikhil Chandra Mondal V/s. State of West Bengal
reported in 2023 (6) SCC 605 , to contend that 'the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established and the circumstances
concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established'.
Further that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece
of evidence and if it is surrounded by suspicious
circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses
its importance.
Paragraph Nos.11, 16 and 17 of the above judgment
are extracted hereunder:
" 11. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that
the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established. It has
been held that the circumstances concerned "must or
should" and not "may be" established. It has been
held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or
should be proved." It has been held that the facts so
established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has
been held that the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they should
exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain
of evidence so complete so as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must show that in
all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused.
16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been
held that where an extra-judicial confession is
surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its
credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its
importance. It has further been held that it is well-
settled that it is a rule of caution where the court
would generally look for an independent reliable
corroboration before placing any reliance upon such
extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there
is no doubt that conviction can be based on
extrajudicial confession, but in the very nature of
things, it is a weak piece of evidence.
17. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the
judgment of this Court in Sahadevan v. State of T.N.
4 This Court, in the said case, after referring to
various earlier judgments on the point, observed
thus" . (SCC pp. 412-13, para 16)
16
" . Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred
judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to
state the principles which would make an extra-
judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence
capable of forming the basis of conviction of an
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
accused. These precepts would guide the judicial
mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where
the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial
confession alleged to have been made by the
accused:
(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak
evidence by itself. It has to be examined
by the court with greater care and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should
be truthful.
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater
credibility and evidentiary value if it is
supported by a chain of cogent
circumstances and is further corroborated
by other prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the
basis of conviction, it should not suffer
from any material discrepancies and
inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such statement essentially has to be
proved like any other fact and in
accordance with law."
23. The learned counsel has also relied on para 7 of
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Moorthy V/s State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR
2023 SC 3960 . The said para is extracted hereunder:
“7. We have perused the evidence of PW-1 Ganesan
who was posted as the Village Administrative Officer
at the time of the commission of the offence. He was
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
not permanently posted in Village Seekkarajapuram
as he stated that at the time of recording of
evidence, he was transferred as Village
Administrative Officer to Ranipet. PW-1 admitted in
the cross-examination that he did not know the
appellant before he came to him and allegedly made
the extra-judicial confession. The incident is of 29th
May 2006 but the alleged extra-judicial confession
was made on 10th August 2006. It is impossible to
understand why would the appellant meet the Village
Administrative Officer, who was a total stranger to
him, more than two months after the incident for
making a confession. PW-I and the appellant were
not known to each other till 10th of August 2006.
Normally an accused will confide only with a person
in whom he has implicit faith. He would not go to a
stranger to make a confession of guilt. The fact that
the alleged confession was made by him more than
two months after the incident makes it more
suspicious".
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions
has held that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece
of evidence and its credibility becomes doubtful, if it is
surrounded by suspicious circumstances. In Nikhil
Chandra Mondal (supra), it is held that 'as a rule of
caution, the Court would generally look for independent
reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon
such extra-judicial confession'.
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
25. In Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), it
is observed that 'normally an accused will confide only
with a person in whom he has implicit faith and he would
not go to a stranger to make a confession of guilt'. In the
said case, the confession was made by the accused to a
Village Administrative Officer, a total stranger, more than
two months after the incident. Hence, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the extra-judicial confession was
suspicious.
26. In the case on hand, the accused made the
confession before the sister of the deceased. What is more
relevant is that, it is only after the accused revealed the
crime committed by him that the witnesses found the dead
body inside the house. Hence, the dead body was
discovered after the accused revealing to PW.4, sister of
the deceased, that he had committed the murder. Apart
from the extra-judicial confession, there are abundant,
independent, reliable corroboration which would clearly
establish the charge levelled against the accused.
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61231-DB
CRL.A No. 1964 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010511712019
27. Upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence and
material on record, we are of the firm view that the facts
so established are consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and not explainable on any other
hypothesis. The circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution are of a conclusive nature and consistent with
the guilt of the accused and shows that in all human
probability the act has been done by the accused. Hence,
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed
by the trial Court warrants no interference. Accordingly,
we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B.PRAMOD)
JUDGE
MKM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7