Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1450 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1382 OF 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1451 OF 2018
IN CRL.A No. 1450/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. BILIGIRI
SON OF THE LATE RANGANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BIDARAGUDU VILLAGE,
NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT
(CONVICT UNDERGOING SENTENCE
OF IMPRISONMENT IN MYSORE
DISTRICT JAIL).
…APPELLANT
[BY SRI. TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RENY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE (P/H)]
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULLAHALLI POLICE STATION,
NANJUNGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
Digitally
signed by
LAKSHMI T
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SC 39/2016, 236/2016 AND
356/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
MYSURU AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
PASSED THEREON ON 25.06.2018 AND SENTENCE DATED
28.06.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.39/2016, 236/2016 & 356/2016
BY II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, APPLICABLE TO THIS
APPELLANT IS CONCERNED AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR
THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH APPELLANT IS CONVICTED AND
SENTENCED.
IN CRL.A NO. 1382/2018
BETWEEN:
1. PUTTARAJU
S/O SOMANNANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
BIDARAGUDU VILLAGE, NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSURU, PIN CODE:571 129.
2. RANGA SHETTY
S/O MARANKASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
BIDARAGUDU VILLAGE,
NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSURU, PIN CODE:571 129.
...APPELLANTS
[BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE (P/H)]
AND:
STATE BY HULLAHALLI POLICE
MYSORE,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE,
PIN CODE NO: 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP (P/H)]
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN
ND
S.C.NO.236/2016 DATED: 25/06/2018 ON THE FILE OF 2
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, BY ALLOWING THIS
CRIMINAL APPEAL.
IN CRL.A NO. 1451/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. GEETHA
W/O LATE KUMARA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT BIDARAGUDU VILLAGE,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
(CONVICT UNDERGOING SENTENCE
OF IMPRISONMENT IN MYSORE
DISTRICT JAIL).
...APPELLANT
[BY SRI. TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RENY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE (P/H)]
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULLAHALLI POLICE STATION,
NANJUNGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
[BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP (P/H)]
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SC 39/2016, 236/2016 AND
356/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
MYSURU AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTIONS
PASSED THEREON ON 25.06.2018 AND SENTENCES DATED
28.06.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.39/16, 236/16 & 356/2016
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
PASSED BY II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, APPLICABLE
TO THIS APPELLANT & ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR THE
OFFENCE WITH WHICH APPELLANT IS CONVICTED AND
SENTENCED.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
The Judgment and Order dated 25/28.06.2018
passed by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge,
Mysuru, in SC Nos.39/2016, 236/2016 and 356/2016
insofar as convicting accused Nos. 1 to 4, is assailed in
these appeals.
2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has
convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable
under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accused No.4
for the offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w 302
IPC, 114 r/w 302 IPC and 201 of IPC.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
3. Crl.A.No.1450/2018 is preferred by accused
No.1, Crl.A.No.1382/2018 is preferred by accused Nos.2
and 3 and Crl.A.No.1451/2018 is preferred by accused
No.4.
4. We have heard the learned Senior counsel
Sri.Tomy Sebastian appearing for the appellants in
Crl.A.No.1450/2018 and Crl.A.No.1451/2018 and the
learned counsel Sri Raju C.N., for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.1382/2018 and the learned Additional SPP
Smt. Rashmi Jadhav for the State. Perused the evidence
and material on record.
5. Brief facts of the prosecution case:
Accused No.4-Geetha is the wife of deceased Kumar.
There was an illicit relationship between accused No.4 and
accused No.1. Hence, accused No.4 conspired with
accused No.1 to commit the murder of her husband
Kumar. In furtherance of the said conspiracy and at the
instigation of accused No.4, on the intervening night
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
between 17.02.2015 and 18.02.2015, at about
01.00 a.m., in front of the house of deceased Kumar,
situated at Bidaragudu Village, with a common intention of
committing the murder of Kumar, accused No.1
strangulated him with a cycle chain while accused Nos.2
and 3 held him and committed his murder. Further,
accused Nos.4 to 19 who were legally bound to give
information regarding commission of the offence,
intentionally omitted to give such information to the police
and burnt the dead body with an intention to cause
disappearance of evidence and to screen the offenders
namely accused Nos.1 to 4 from legal punishment.
6. Charges were framed under Section 302 r/w 34
of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3, 120B r/w 34 of IPC
against accused Nos.1 and 4, 302 r/w 114 IPC against
accused No.4, 176 and 201 IPC against accused Nos.4 to
19.
7. Insofar as the charge framed under Section 176
IPC against accused Nos.4 to 19, the same was quashed
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
by this Court. Hence, the trial Court proceeded against the
accused in respect of other charges framed against them.
8. In order to establish the charges leveled, the
prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses and got marked
25 documents and MO1. The defence got marked Ex.D1
to Ex.D5.
9. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court was
pleased to acquit accused Nos.5 to 19 of the offence
punishable under Section 201 IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 4
were convicted as stated supra.
10. The incident took place on the intervening night
of 17.02.2015 and 18.02.2015. However, the case was
registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 on 23.03.2015. The
complainant-Basavaraju, brother-in-law of deceased
Kumar, in his complaint at Ex.P25 has stated that on
17.02.2015 at about 08.30 p.m., while they were sitting in
front of their house and talking, accused No.2-Puttaraju
and accused No.3-Ranga Shetty came near their house
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
and called deceased Kumar. Accused No.1 was standing
at a distance. Complainant's mother-in-law-
Puttamadamma (PW6) asked them as to where they are
going for which, they replied that they will go inside the
village and return. Saying so, they took Kumar with them
and after sometime accused No.4-Geetha, wife of Kumar
also left the house stating that she is going to her parental
home. After about 45 minutes, Geetha-accused No.4
returned. After having dinner when they were sleeping, at
about 01.00 a.m., they heard some noise. Complainant
came out of the house hearing the screaming of accused
No.4 and saw Kumar lying dead in a gutter. He noticed
some marks around his neck caused by a cycle chain and
certain injuries on the left side of the forehead and also on
his private part.
11. In Ex.P25, it is further stated that on
18.02.2015, some of the villagers told if they lodge a
complaint, it will affect the village festival. Accused
No.4/wife of the deceased did not allow to lodge complaint
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
threatening that if any complaint is lodged, she will
commit suicide. Therefore, the dead body was burnt. On
19.02.2015, accused No.1 called from his mobile phone
and enquired about the incident. It is further stated that
the complainant later came to know about the illicit
relationship between accused No.1 and accused No.4 and
quarrels happening over the said illicit relationship.
12. On the basis of the complaint lodged by
Basavaraju, who was later arraigned as accused No.5 in
the chargesheet, PW12, PSI of Hullahalli Police Station
registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 4 in
Cr.No.37/2015 and transmitted the FIR-Ex.P15 to the
jurisdictional Court. Investigation was then taken over by
PW11-Police Inspector and on completion of investigation,
he filed the chargesheet.
13. The trial Court, mainly on the basis of the
evidence of PW6 and PW7 and recovery of cycle chain and
taking note of the conduct of accused No.4, held accused
Nos.1 to 3 guilty of committing an offence punishable
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accused No.4
guilty of committing offences punishable under Section
120B, 114 and 201 r/w 302 IPC.
14. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently
contended that there is an inordinate and unexplained
delay in lodging the FIR. In Ex.P25-complaint, it is not
stated that PW6 and PW7 are the eye witnesses. The said
witnesses are projected as eye witnesses subsequently to
suit the prosecution case. They are closely related to the
deceased and highly interested witnesses. There are
material contradictions and improvements in their
evidence. Prior to lodging of Ex.P25 on 23.03.2015, there
was one more complaint-Ex.D5 dated 28.02.2015 given by
Basavaraju and the same was suppressed by the
prosecution. The said complaint was got marked at the
instance of the defence.
15. Learned senior counsel further contended that
the complaint at Ex.D5 reveals that the complainant had
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
visited the Police Station on 21.02.2015 and 23.02.2015,
but no case was registered and even in the said complaint,
it is not stated that PW6 and PW7 are the eyewitnesses to
the incident. The motive alleged by the prosecution is also
not believable, as none of the independent witnesses have
deposed about the illicit relationship between accused
No.1 and accused No.4. Further, the case of prosecution
that PW6 and PW7 have seen the incident through the
window of their house is also not believable. There is
inconsistency in their evidence and in the sketch, window
is not shown.
16. Learned senior counsel further contended that, in
this case, the dead body was burnt and therefore, there is
no opinion regarding cause of death. Hence, it cannot be
said that the deceased died a homicidal death. He
contended that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and
therefore, he sustaining injuries on account of a fall is not
ruled out. Later, after cremating the dead body, a false
case was registered against the accused. He, therefore,
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
contended that the trial Court has committed a grave error
in relying on the evidence of PW6 and PW7 and the
recovery evidence for convicting the accused. Accordingly,
the learned senior counsel sought to allow the appeals and
set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence passed by the trial Court.
Per contra
17. , the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor contended that Ex.P25 was lodged by
Basavaraju, brother-in-law of the deceased, who was later
arraigned as accused No.5. During investigation, it was
found that he failed to give information to the Police about
the incident and along with others caused disappearance
of the evidence by burning the dead body. She contended
that in Ex.P25, it is clearly stated that there was illicit
relationship between accused Nos.1 and 4, and accused
No.4, wife of the deceased, threatened not to lodge the
complaint. Further, accused Nos.1 to 3 took the deceased
from the house and on the same night, the deceased was
found murdered. She contended that PW6 and PW7 are
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
natural witnesses and their evidence is believable. They
have categorically stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 have
committed the murder of the deceased. She contended
that MO1-cycle chain was recovered at the instance of
accused No.1 and therefore, considering the entire
evidence and material on record, the trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the accused for the charged
offences. She further contended that after committing the
murder, the dead body was burnt so as to cause
disappearance of the evidence. The same is not disputed
by the defence. She has, accordingly, sought to dismiss
the appeals.
18. Complaint-Ex.P25 is lodged by Basavaraju,
brother-in-law of the deceased. Subsequently, he was
arraigned as accused No.5 and hence, he was not
examined as a prosecution witness. As already mentioned,
the incident took place on the intervening night of
17.02.2015 and 18.02.2015 at about 1.00 a.m. It is the
case of prosecution that accused No.1 was having illicit
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
relationship with accused No.4, wife of the deceased.
Hence, both of them conspired with each other to commit
the murder and in furtherance of the said conspiracy and
at the instigation of accused No.4, accused Nos.1 to 3 took
Kumar from the house and strangulated him with a cycle
chain and committed his murder.
19. Even though the incident took place on
17/18.02.2015, no case was registered till 23.03.2015. In
Ex.P25, it is stated that the deceased was found murdered
in a gutter and on the next day, some of the villagers told
not to lodge the complaint saying that it will affect the
village festival and suggested to cremate the body.
Accused No.4, wife of the deceased, threatened that if a
complaint was lodged, she will commit suicide. Hence, on
the same day at about 1.00 p.m., the body was cremated.
20. A perusal of Ex.P25 reveals that the complaint
was lodged against accused Nos.1 to 4 on suspicion
stating that there was illicit relationship between accused
No.1 and accused No.4. There is no mention in Ex.P25
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
about PW6 or PW7 having witnessed the incident in
question.
21. Ex.D5 is marked through PW12, Sub-Inspector of
Police, who registered the case. PW12 has admitted that
Ex.D5 was received through post. Exs.D3 and D4 are the
postal receipts and postal acknowledgment. In Ex.D5, it is
stated that the complainant and others visited the Police
Station on 21.02.2015 and 23.02.2015 and informed the
matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, but he refused to
receive the complaint. PW12 has denied in the cross-
examination conducted by the defence that accused No.5
along with accused Nos.6 to 19 had visited the Police
Station and informed him about the incident. However, the
receipt of Ex.D5 has not been denied by PW12.
22. In both Ex.P25 and Ex.D5, it is not stated that
PW6 and PW7 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. As per
Ex.D5, on 19.02.2015 at about 12 noon, accused No.1
called from his mobile phone No.7760129077 to the
mobile phone No.7406094074 of Basavaraju-first
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
informant and enquired him about the incident and
therefore, he raised suspicion against him. Admittedly, the
Investigating Officer has not collected the mobile call
detail records to show that accused No.1 had called to the
mobile phone of the first informant.
23. In the instant case, according to prosecution,
PW6, mother of the deceased, and PW7, sister of the
deceased, are the eyewitnesses to the incident. PWs.1
and 2 are the witnesses to the mahazar at Ex.P2
conducted in the house of accused No.4. PW3 is the Police
Constable, who transmitted the F.I.R-Ex.P3 to the Court.
PWs.4, 5 and 8 are independent witnesses examined by
the prosecution to show that the deceased and the
accused were seen together on the night of 17.02.2015.
PW9 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who
apprehended accused No.4, PW10 and PW11 are the
Investigating Officers, and PW12 is the Sub-Inspector of
Police, who registered the case.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
24. According to prosecution, on the night of
17.02.2015, accused Nos.1 to 3 took the deceased from
his house to the Liquor Shop of one Somannanaika-PW4.
However, PW4 has turned hostile and not supported the
case of prosecution. He has categorically stated that the
accused have not come to his shop along with the
deceased to purchase liquor. Similarly, PWs.5 and 8 have
not supported the case of prosecution with regard to the
prosecution theory of deceased last seen in the company
of the accused. Hence, the evidence of PWs.4, 5 and 8 is
not helpful to the prosecution to prove that the deceased
was seen in the company of the accused on the night of
17.02.2015.
25. PW6 and PW7 are the material witnesses. Merely
because they are closely related to the deceased, their
evidence cannot be out rightly rejected. However,
considering that in Ex.P25 and Ex.D5, there is no mention
that they are eyewitnesses, the testimonies of PW6 and
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
PW7, who are the mother and sister of the deceased, have
to be cautiously scrutinised.
26. PW6, in her testimony, has stated that the
marriage of deceased-Kumar and Geetha was a love
marriage, which took place about 17 years prior to the
incident. On the date of incident at about 8.30 p.m., she
was sitting and chatting along with the deceased,
Basavaraju, Kavana (CW7) and Rekha (PW7) in front of
their house. At that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 came and
called Kumar. Accused No.1 was standing at a distance of
three-fourth kilometer from the house. She enquired with
the accused as to where they are going. Accused Nos.2
and 3 took the deceased inside the village. At about
1.00 a.m., she heard some noise near the drainage in
front of her house. Hence, she peeped through the window
and saw accused Nos.2 and 3 holding the deceased and
accused No.1 strangulating him with the cycle chain and
also kicking him. By the time she came out of the house,
all the three accused ran away with the chain. She raised
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
hue and cry. On seeing her son lying dead, she fell
unconscious.
27. PW7 also deposed that at about 8.30 p.m., when
she along with her mother (PW6), her husband-
Basavaraju, deceased-Kumar, Kavana and Geetha were
chatting in front of their house, accused Nos.1 to 3 were
talking to each other at some distance. Accused Nos.2
and 3 came near their house and called her brother-
Kumar. Thereafter, Kumar went inside the village telling
that he will come within ten minutes. After ten minutes,
Geetha-accused No.4 also left the house stating that she is
going to her parental house. She saw accused Nos.1 to 3
standing at a distance with the help of street light. At
about 1.00 a.m., they heard some noise. She along with
her mother came out and saw accused No.1 strangulating
Kumar with a cycle chain and accused Nos.2 and 3 holding
him. They raised hue and cry and at that time, all the
three accused ran away towards the village.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
28. PW11-Circle Inspector of Police, who went to the
spot on 24.03.2015, conducted the spot mahazar as per
Ex.P16 and recorded the statements of CW1 (PW6) and
CW6 (PW7) to CW15. The statements of PW6 and PW7
were recorded for the first time on 24.03.2025, i.e. after
thirty-seven days from the date of incident. Since PW6 did
not incriminate accused Nos.5 to 19 in her evidence, she
was treated hostile by the prosecution. In the cross-
examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor,
PW6 has denied having stated as per Exs.P6 and P7 in her
statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is
relevant to extract Ex.P6, which is as under:
……..
" ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 01.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è
PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ºÉAqÀw VÃvÁ eÉÆÃgÁV ¨Á¬Ä §rzÀÄPÉÆAqÁUÀ
±À§Þ PÉý £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ gÉÃSÁ, ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀªÀ£À,
C½AiÀÄ §¸ÀªÀgÁdÄ, JzÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ CAPÀªÀÄä,
ªÀĺÀzÉêÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ªÀiÁzÀªÀÄä, ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ
dAiÀĪÀÄä J®ègÀÆ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ
ªÀÄÄAzÉ EgÀĪÀ ZÀgÀAr ºÀwÛgÀ ¥ÀÄlÖgÁdÄ & gÀAUÀ±ÉnÖ E§âgÀÄ
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ£À£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ©½Vj PÀĪÀiÁgÀ£À
PÀwÛUÉ ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï ZÉÊ£ï¤AzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ ºÁQ ©VAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ
…………
.."
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
29. According to PW6, at about 01.00 a.m., she
heard some noise near the drainage situated in front of
her house. Hence, she peeped through the window and
saw accused Nos.2 and 3 holding the deceased and
accused No.1 strangulating him with a chain. By the time,
she came out of the house, all the three ran away. Then
she started screaming. Whereas, PW7 has stated that at
about 1.00 a.m. on hearing some sound, she along with
her mother came out and saw accused No.1 strangulating
the deceased and accused Nos.2 and 3 holding him. Both
of them raised hue and cry and at that time, all the three
ran away from the spot.
30. PW7 has not deposed in her evidence that she
along with her daughter i.e., PW6 came out of the house
and saw accused committing the crime. According to her,
she saw the incident through the window and by the time
she came out of the house, all the three ran away and
thereafter, she raised hue and cry. According to PW7, she
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
along with her mother/PW6 came out of the house on
hearing some noise and saw the accused committing the
crime.
31. In the cross examination conducted by the Public
Prosecutor, PW6 has admitted that she has not stated as
per Ex.P7, the portion of her statement as culled out
supra. PW6 has admitted that she has not stated before
the police that she heard some noise at about 1.00 a.m.
near the drainage and saw the incident through the
window. Hence, the testimony of PW6 regarding
witnessing the accused committing the crime through the
window is an improvement, which she has stated for the
first time before the court. Further, she has admitted in
the cross-examination conducted by the defence that due
to her old age, she has low eyesight. The incident has
admittedly taken place at about 1.00 a.m. in the night. In
view of the discrepancy and improvements made in the
evidence of PW6 and PW7 as noted above and having
regard to the fact that in Ex.P25 and Ex.D5, they are not
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
named as eye witnesses to the incident, their testimony to
hold that they have witnessed the accused committing the
murder, is difficult to believe.
32. Both PW6 and PW7 have stated that there are
several other houses situated near their house and on
hearing the hue and cry, some of the villagers rushed to
the spot. However, none of the independent witnesses
viz., the neighbours of the deceased are examined in this
case.
33. Admittedly, the dead body was cremated on the
following day of the incident and therefore, there is no
medical evidence with regard to cause of death. Though
PW6 and PW7 have denied the suggestion that the
deceased was addicted to alcohol and he fell in the
drainage and died, there is no corroboration to the
evidence of PW6 and PW7 to show that the deceased died
a homicidal death.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
34. The evidence of PW6 and PW7, as discussed by
us, is in stark contrast to the prosecution evidence. Their
evidence is not believable and trustworthy. There is no
material to substantiate the evidence that accused Nos.1
to 3 have committed the murder, at the instigation and
abetment of accused No.4. We are of the considered view
that the testimony of PW6 and PW7 would come in the
category of wholly unreliable witnesses, as such, the
conviction on the basis of their testimony, in our view,
would not be sustainable.
35. Insofar as motive is concerned, as already
discussed hereinabove, with regard to the illicit
relationship that accused No.1 had with accused No.4, as
alleged by the prosecution, it is a double edged weapon.
Hence, possibility of false implication of the accused
cannot be ruled out.
36. The prosecution is also relying on the recovery of
MO.1- cycle chain at the instance of accused No.1.
According to prosecution, after the arrest of accused No.1,
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
he led the police to his house, from where, cycle chain-
MO.1 was seized under Ex.P21. The prosecution has not
examined the panch witnesses to the said mahazar-
Ex.P21. Except the evidence of the IO-PW11, there is no
other evidence to establish the recovery of MO.1 at the
instance of accused No.1.
37. It is no doubt that, PW6 and PW7 being the
mother and sister of the deceased can be termed as
natural witnesses. Even though they are closely related to
the deceased, mere relationship will not make them
interested witnesses. The close relatives of the deceased
are unlikely to falsely implicate an innocent person.
However, when the court notices discrepancies,
contradictions and improvements in their evidence, it is
necessary to find out corroboration. In the present case,
having carefully perused the evidence of PW6 and PW7,
we are of the opinion that their evidence is not truthful.
Though the incident took place on 17.02.2015, neither in
Ex.D5 dated 28.02.2015 and Ex.P25 dated 23.03.2015,
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
PW6 and PW7 are named as eye witnesses. In both the
said documents, it is not stated that PW6 and PW7 have
seen the accused committing the murder. On the other
hand, both the documents reveal that the complaint was
lodged against accused Nos.1 to 4, suspecting their role in
the commission of the crime, as they suspected an illicit
relationship between accused No.1 and accused No.4.
Hence, on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of
PW6 and PW7, it is not safe to convict the accused. The
trial Court has not properly appreciated the contradictions
and improvements in the evidence of PW6 and PW7.
Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial
Court against accused Nos.1 to 4 is unsustainable.
38. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence and
material on record and for the aforesaid reasons, we are of
the view that prosecution has failed to establish the
charges leveled against accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence the following
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19158-DB
CRL.A No. 1450 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 1382 of 2018
CRL.A No. 1451 of 2018
HC-KAR
O R D E R
allowed
i. The appeals are .
ii. The judgment and order dated 25.06.2018 and
28.06.2018 passed by the Court of III Addl. Sessions
Judge, Mysuru in SC No.39/2016, 236/2016 and
356/ 2016, convicting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC
and accused No.4 for the offence punishable under
Sections 120B, 114 r/w 302 IPC and 201 IPC are
hereby set aside.
iii. The accused are acquitted of the offences charged
against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
TL / KVK / MN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19