Karnataka High Court
Shekar S/O Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100357 OF 2023 (C)
BETWEEN:
SHEKAR S/O. BABU,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. II WARD, BUDUGUPPA VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
Digitally signed
by YASHAVANT
TEKKALAKOTE CIRCLE, TEKKALAKOTE,
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH DIST. BALLARI, BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD DHARWAD BENCH.
BENCH
Date: 2026.03.25
14:21:33 +0530
- RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C. 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 29.04.2023 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
29.04.2023 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.56/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
also the counsel appearing for the State, i.e. Additional S.P.P.
2. This appeal is filed against judgment of conviction
and sentence for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
imposing life imprisonment with fine of ₹20,000/- and also
invoked Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that the
accused was having ill will against the deceased Mahadeva as the
deceased was having illicit relationship with the mother of the
accused. On 25.02.2020 at about 04.30 p.m. the deceased
Mahadevappa went to attend nature call to the land of one
Ayyanna Gouda. When he was attending nature call at that time
accused by holding axe went there and assaulted to
Mahadevappa on the back side of the head, near right eye and
caused grievous bleeding injuries thereby tried to commit the
murder. On hearing the screaming sound PW1, PW2 and PW3
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
went to the spot and seeing them the accused ran away. The
injured was immediately shifted to Karur Govt. Hospital and
thereafter he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Ballari for higher
treatment. Ultimately he was succumbed to the injuries on
27.05.2020 at about 06.44 p.m. The I.O. based on the
complaint, Ex.P.1, registered the case against the accused in
Crime No. 54/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC, thereafter investigated the matter and filed the charge
sheet. The same is numbered as C.C. No. 294/2020. After the
matter was committed to the Sessions Court, the same is
numbered as S.C. No. 56/2020. During the trial since accused
was in judicial custody he was secured before the trial Court and
he did not plead guilty and claims the trial. Hence prosecution
relies upon the evidence of PW1 to 19; documents as per Ex.P.1
to 27 and marked material objects as per M.O.1 to 8. The trial
Judge after closure of the evidence of prosecution recorded
statement of the accused u/S 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied
the incriminating evidence but he did not choose to lead any
defence evidence. However, confronted the documents at Exhibit
D1 to 3 during the course of cross examination of prosecution
witnesses.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. The trial judge having considered both oral and
documentary evidence and also the judgments which have been
relied upon by both the accused as well as the State and on
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, accepted
the case of prosecution and convicted the accused and sentenced
for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
5. Being aggrieved by the said reasoning of conviction
and sentence in the appeal it is specifically contented that the
trial Judge has committed an error in relying upon the evidence
of PW1 and PW2, who claim to be the eyewitnesses and their
evidence is contrary to each other and both of them have not
whispered anything regarding motive to commit the offence. In
the evidence, both these witnesses have clearly admitted that
they came to know about the illicit intimacy of the deceased with
the mother of the accused through the general public. PW1 in
her cross-examination has clearly admitted that mother of the
accused has no any illicit intimacy with the deceased and also
does not know the contents of Ex.P.1. It is further say of PW1 in
her cross examination that weapon used for the commission of
the offence, i.e. M.O.8 is shown by her to the Police. On the
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
other side, it is the statement of PW18 that on the basis of the
voluntary statement of the accused under Ex.P.6, the same is
recovered at the instance of the accused and the same is
contradictory to each other.
6. The counsel also would submit that trial judge
committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW1 and
PW2. PW2 in his evidence has stated that he had seen the
accused running away from the place of incident along with the
weapon, i.e. M.O.8, so also he had seen the injured sustaining
injury to his head and other parts of the body and he has shifted
the injured to the hospital along with PW1. In the cross
examination, he has clearly admitted that there is no enmity
between the accused and the deceased. He also admitted that he
came to know about the relationship of the deceased with
mother of accused from the public. He do not personally know
about the alleged illicit relationship of the deceased with the
mother of the accused. He further admitted that at the time of
incident PW1 was behind the house of PW2 which clearly indicate
doubt regarding two different statements of the eyewitnesses.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
The trial judge failed to take note of contradictions in the
evidence of PW1 and PW2.
7. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem, i.e.
P.W.15, noted eight injuries. But as per the evidence of PW1, the
deceased had sustained injuries on the face, right eye, and also
over the body. Even at Ex.P.18, it is reported that injuries are on
the head and face of the deceased, and no single word about any
injury on the other part of the body except head and face.
8. It is also contended that PW8 is the owner of the land
where the alleged incident had occurred. In his evidence he has
clearly stated that place where the incident occurred is the land
which is entirely covered with thorny bushes and the height of
the said thorny bushes is on higher level and what act is going
inside the land cannot be seen by standing outside. M.O. No. 8,
the weapon used for the commission of the offence is not shown
or sent to the Doctor, who has conducted the autopsy, to verify
the width and depth of the wound and did not obtain the report
or opinion from him. Hence the investigation is not properly and
effectively conducted by the Investigation Officer. Even evidence
of the witnesses cannot be relied upon. Even the recovery, as
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
per evidence of PW4 also not inspires the confidence of the
Court.
9. The counsel also would submit that there was an
untenable delay in registering the case, i.e. the complaint is
registered after 18½ hours. If really PW1 and PW2 have
witnessed the incident, they would have informed the same but
they have not informed to the Police as well as Doctor. The
counsel would submit that the admission on the part of PW1 and
PW2 is very clear that motive is not proved and the evidence of
PW1 and PW2 also not inspires the confidence of the Court that
they are the eyewitnesses to the incident.
10. The counsel also would submit that it is an admission
on the part of PW4 and also the evidence of the owner of the
land wherein the same was fully covered with thorn bush and
also the evidence of PW16 and PW18; also not enquired the
persons when they went to the spot and also to the hospital
regarding assailant is concerned and their evidence also not
inspires the confidence of the Court.
11. Though PW1 claims that she is an eyewitness, her
evidence does not inspire the confidence that she is an
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
eyewitness to the incident. The counsel also would submit that,
appellant is in custody from last 5 years, 9 months, 23 days. He
was in custody throughout. The trial judge committed an error in
relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
12. The counsel also in support of his argument, relies
upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Boby Vs. The
State of Kerala, which was delivered on 12.01.2023 and
brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos. 20, 22, 25, 26, 27
and 32.
13. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent-
State, Additional S.P.P. would submit that it is a clear case of
homicide. The evidence of the Doctor, PW15 is very clear that
nature of injuries could be caused by using MO8. The counsel
also would submit that in the postmortem report it is specifically
mentioned as 9 injuries. The counsel also would submit that the
evidence of PW1 and PW2 is believable, who having heard the
screaming sound immediately rushed to the spot and found the
accused inflicting the injury on the victim, when the public
gathered to the spot the accused ran away from the spot,
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
immediately the injured was taken to the hospital by PW1 and
PW2. Their evidence is consistent.
14. The counsel also would submit that the prosecution
mainly relies upon the evidence of PW4, who is a recovery
witness. His evidence is consistent with regard to the recovery
of axe at the instance of the accused. The counsel also would
submit that the evidence of PW16 and PW18, who conducted the
investigation at the initial stage as well as the complete
investigation, is consistent and their evidence is believable.
15. The counsel also submits that PW7 speaks about
seizure of cloth M.O. 5 to 7. PW9 is the owner of the Auto in
which injured was shifted to the hospital. PW10 is the Police
Constable who carried the F.I.R. on 26.05.2020 and the accused
was produced before the Court at 08.00 p.m. PW11-Head
Constable visited the hospital and tried to record the dying
declaration of the injured but the Doctor has endorsed that he
was not in a fit condition to make any statement. PW12 is the
FSL Officer, who conducted examination of the seized articles
and given report. PW13 is the Revenue Inspector, who issued
Record of Rights and PW14 is the Engineer, who drawn the
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
sketch of the spot of the incident and their evidence is also
consistent. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused
having considered both oral and documentary evidence available
on record and it does not require any interference of this Court.
16. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant
and also the counsel for the respondent-State and considering
the grounds urged in the appeal as well as oral submissions of
appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the
respondent-State, the points that would arise for the
consideration of this Court are:
i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
convicting the accused believing the evidence
of PW1 and PW2/eyewitnesses, PW4/Pancha
witness and the evidence of PW16 and PW18/
Investigating Officers and it requires
interference of this Court?
ii) What order?
17. Having heard the respective counsel, we have
perused both oral and documentary evidence and have given
anxious consideration to the material available on record. No
doubt, it is the case of the prosecution that there is direct
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
evidence against the accused and it relies upon the evidence of
PW1 and PW2. It also relies upon the evidence of PW3, but he
turned hostile. This Court has to consider the direct evidence as
well as circumstantial evidence to consider whether this case falls
under direct evidence or circumstantial evidence.
18. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of
PW1 and PW2. They are the eye witnesses. No doubt, PW1 and
PW2 have categorically deposed before the Court that having
heard the screaming sound of the victim, they rushed to the spot
of incident. PW1 deposed that the accused was inflicting injury
with axe on all over the body of the deceased and she witnessed
the same. PW1 did not speak anything about PW2 coming to the
spot but she says that when she screamed at the spot, accused
ran away from the spot with axe and she noticed that her
husband sustained injuries. It is her evidence that having noticed
the injuries on the body of her husband, she shifted him in an
auto-rickshaw to Karur Government Hospital and the doctor
advised to take him to the other hospital for higher treatment
and hence, they shifted him to the VIMS Hospital, Ballari.
Thereafter, PW1 lodged complaint with the Police, which was
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
drafted by CW11-Hanumayya and she put her left thumb
impression on it. It is her evidence that she had shown the place
of incident to the Police and the Police have seized the chappal
belonged to her husband and also bloodstained and unstained
mud. She stated that the Police also took her signature to
Ex.P.2-Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.3-Sketch. She identified the
photograph marked at Ex.P.4 and material objects marked at
M.O.1 to 4. She identified the clothes of the deceased as M.O.5
to 7. It is also her evidence that her husband died in hospital. It
is her evidence that the accused was quarreling with her
husband and inflicted injuries with an axe.
19. This witness was subjected to cross-examination.
She also identified M.O.8-Axe. In the cross-examination, it is
elicited that she does not know, who wrote the Ex.P1-Complaint.
She admitted that either the mother of the accused or the
accused had lodged any complaint against her husband
regarding illicit relationship. PW1 also categorically admitted that
the place of incident was covered with thorn bushes. She also
categorically admits that she did not give any complaint on the
date of the incident and also even did not make any statement
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
before the doctor that the accused had assaulted her husband,
however she stated that she gave statement before the Police.
To the specific question that whether she made her statement
before the doctor, she answered that she has not given such
statement. She categorically admits that she did not mention the
nature of injuries sustained by her husband even before the
Police. It is also elicited that PW2 and PW3 are young boys. She
categorically admits that her husband was not having illicit
relationship with the mother of the accused. She admits that she
does not know the contents of Ex.P.1-complaint since she is
illiterate. Further, she admits that in Karur Government Hospital
also she did not make any statement regarding who assaulted
her husband, but she says that she went to the hospital in an
auto-rickshaw. It was suggested to this witness that axe like
M.O.8 will be available in all farmers’ houses, but she claims that
she saw the same at a distance of 4 feet and she was very much
present while the accused was inflicting injuries and even she
pushed the accused, and while pushing him, PW2 and PW3 came
to the spot, but both PW2 and PW3 did not make any attempt to
catch hold of the accused and M.O.1 and 2 were there at the
spot. She stated that M.O.8 was stained with blood and she was
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
present at the time of seizure and she had shown the axe to the
Police. When a suggestion was made to this witness that the
accused did not inflict any injury with the axe, the same was
denied by PW1.
20. The other witness is PW2, who is none other than the
brother of the deceased. He also claims that he witnessed the
incident of inflicting injuries by the accused and he had noticed
the injury sustained by his brother and he claims that in an auto-
rickshaw belonging to one Mari Irappa, the injured was taken by
himself and PW1 to the hospital, PW1 gave the complaint and
the injured succumbed to the injuries on the next day. He stated
that the accused only had inflicted the injury with axe and
committed the murder of the deceased.
21. This witness was subjected to cross-examination.
When a suggestion was made that the accused and the deceased
were not having any enmity, he denied the same. However, he
deposed that he came to know from people gathered at the spot
of the incident that there was illicit relationship between the
deceased and the mother of the accused and people were talking
about the same, but he did not witness the same and even he is
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
unable to say who were talking about such illicit relationship.
Even this witness has not stated the names of such persons and
where they were speaking about such relationship. Even he
admits that he did not give any statement before the Police with
regard to the same and also no complaint was given with regard
to the illicit relationship. Though he claims that he had made the
statement before the doctor in both the hospitals that accused
only inflicted the injury and he claims that it was stated before
the doctor at 9.00 p.m. on the very day and even Police came
and enquired with him at 10.00 p.m. and the place of incident is
a hallow land, he deposed that he cannot tell on which part of
the body of his brother the accused inflicted injury and even says
that he cannot say how many blows were given. He stated that
he did not count the blows and when he reached the spot, the
accused had already run away from the spot.
22. Having taken note of the answers elicited from the
mouth of PW1 and PW2, it is very clear that immediately after
the incident, either PW1 or PW2 have not stated anything before
anybody else that the accused only inflicted the injury. It is also
important to note that even when the Investigating Officer went
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
to the hospital on previous day, i.e. date of incident, no such
statement was made by the witnesses that the accused only
inflicted the injury. The name of the assailant was also not stated
by these witnesses immediately after the incident either to the
Doctor or to the Investigating Officer. If really they witnessed
the incident, the PW1 and 2 have informed the same but it
creates the doubt that they have not witnessed the incident.
23. It is the contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellant that there was a delay of 18½ hours in lodging the
complaint. The incident was taken place on previous day at
04.30 p.m., but the complaint was lodged on the next day at
11.00 a.m., and the FIR reached the Court at 01.30 p.m.
Thereafter, the accused was arrested and produced before the
Court on the next day at 08.00 p.m. It is to be noted that none
of these witnesses have made any statement before the doctor
that the accused only inflicted injury. It is also important to note
that when PW16-Investigating Officer went to the hospital to
record the statement of the injured and before he went to the
doctor to know that whether the injured is able to make
statement and in the said requisition also not stated the name of
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
the assailant, wherein it is mentioned as someone else has
infected the injury and not mentioned whether the injured is in a
fit state of mind and able to give statement. Ex.P.10 is also
marked wherein it is categorically mentioned that someone else
assaulted with axe with wooden log, which is not the case of the
prosecution. The prosecution’s case is that the injuries were
caused with axe and not with club. Even at the time of giving the
requisition on 26.05.2020 at 9.10 a.m. and before lodging the
complaint also they were not aware as to who was the assailant.
When such being the case, if really PW1 and PW2 are the
eyewitnesses to the incident, they could have mentioned the
name of the assailant and hence, it is very clear that PW1 and
PW2 are not the eyewitnesses to the incident and they have
been made as eyewitnesses to the incident for the convenience
of the prosecution. Even the answers elicited from the mouth of
PW1 and PW2 also not inspires the confidence of the Court that
they are the eyewitnesses and hence, the evidence of these two
witnesses cannot be accepted as eyewitnesses. The evidence of
these witnesses is contradictory to each other and even PW2
unable to depose how many blows are given and nature of
injuries.
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
24. No doubt, the prosecution also relies upon the
evidence of PW3 as an eyewitness but he also has turned hostile.
He did not support the case of the prosecution. Now, case
remains with circumstantial evidence. In the absence of direct
evidence, it is trite law that in a case of circumstantial evidence
there must be a proof of chain link evidence to prove the case.
The law is well settled with regard to consideration of the
material in a case of circumstantial evidence in view of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad
Birdichandra Sarda (referred supra) and also the recent
judgment of the Apex Court in State of Subramanya v. State
of Karnataka reported in (2023) 11 SCC 255 wherein also it is
reiterated the Panchasheela while considering the case of
circumstantial evidence, that means, all circumstances should
point out the role of the accused in coming to a conclusion that
the accused person only committed the crime and if any chain
link is not established, the benefit of doubt has to be extended in
favour of the accused.
25. In the case on hand, no doubt it is the claim of the
prosecution that it is a case of direct evidence and this Court has
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
not accepted the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who are the direct
witnesses. To prove that there was a last seen theory, no
evidence is available before the Court. Apart from that as
regards motive is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution
that the deceased was having an illicit relationship with the
mother of the accused. Though PW1 in her evidence states that
the accused was quarreling with the deceased but she has not
stated with regard to the illicit relationship between the deceased
and the mother of the accused is concerned. In the cross
examination, PW1 categorically admitted that there was no illicit
relationship with her husband and the mother of the accused.
26. The evidence of PW2 is also not consistent and he
only says that he came to know about illicit relationship while
people were talking about the same, but he was unable to
depose as to who was speaking about the illicit relationship and
he has not named the person, who gave the information to him
and also about the place where they were talking. The evidence
of PW1 and PW2 is also not consistent with regard to the motive
is concerned about illicit relationship and the same is not proved.
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
27. Now, the other circumstance, which the prosecution
relies upon is the evidence of PW4, who is a recovery witness.
According to him, he was called to the Police Station. He deposed
that he went with Police officials to the place where the accused
had shown the weapon. But his evidence is very clear that he
accompanied the Police as per their instructions. In the cross
examination, he categorically admits that in his presence, the
accused did not mention anything about he is going to produce
the weapon. Even at the time of conducting the Mahazar also,
the accused has not stated anything and even he is not able to
give description of the spot where the recovery was made and
also he is not having any information in respect of Ex.P.6-spot
and seizure mahazar and also admits that M.O.8 would be
available in any of the places and he also not stated anything
about who wrote the Ex.P.6 and also nothing is mentioned in
Ex.P.6 with regard to the seizure of stained mud while drawing
the mahazar/Ex.P6. He categorically admits that based on
instructions of the Senior Officer and also the Village Accountant,
he is giving evidence before the Court. When such evidence is
given by PW6, his evidence also cannot be believed regarding
recovery. It is not his evidence that the accused only led him to
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
the spot, but he only says that at the spot the accused had
produced the weapon. When such being the case, the recovery is
also not proved. The Trial Court fails to take note of the evidence
of PW4 and his evidence is not consistent regarding recovery and
not inspires confidence of the Court.
28. Now coming to the evidence of PW16 and PW18-
Investigating Officers, it is very clear that PW16 came to know
about the incident on previous day itself having received the MLC
intimation and also it has to be taken note of that in the MLC, at
the first instance, it is mentioned as a ‘fall in bathroom’ and the
same is struck out and it is mentioned as ‘a history of assault’. It
is categorically admitted in the cross-examination that to strike
out and write the same, there is no any counter signature of the
person, who made the entry and the same is also doubtful to the
case of the prosecution. Even PW16, who came to know about
the information, sent two officials to the hospital and they came
and reported that the injured was not in a position to make the
statement but requisition Ex.P.10 is clear that someone inflicted
injury. PW16 also categorically says that he went to the hospital
and enquired with the attendants of the injured, but he did not
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
register the case. When the cognizable offence was taken place
and even the injured was not in a position to make the
statement and was unconscious, the Investigating Officer ought
to have registered the case in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others
reported in AIR 2014 SC 187, but has not done the same and
waited till filing of the complaint on the next day at 11.00 a.m.
and there is a lapse on the part of the PW16/ Investigating
Officer and it is clear that PW16 is not aware of who is the
assailant.
29. No doubt, it is settled law that even if there is a lapse
on the part of the Investigating Officer, the same cannot be a
ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. But it is trite
law that if other evidence available before the Court inspires the
confidence of the Court and if the Court comes to the conclusion
that the accused only has done away the life of the deceased,
then lapses will not come in the way of the Court in coming to
such a conclusion. But in the case on hand, this Court already
discussed the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that they are not the
eyewitnesses. The evidence of other circumstantial witness also
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
does not support the case of the prosecution and this Court
already pointed out that Panchasheela ought to have been
proved and each link has to be established in order to come to
such a conclusion and even the evidence of PW18 also will not
come to the aid of the prosecution. PW16 also not enquired with
the persons with regard to the incident is concerned and only
acted upon on the next day after having received the complaint
from PW1 that too a belated complaint of 18½ hours and hence
it is very clear that none of the circumstances point out the role
of the accused.
30. First of all, the prosecution was not able to prove the
motive with regard to the illicit relationship and none of the
witnesses speak positively that there was an illicit relationship
between the deceased and the mother of the accused and also
with regard to the recovery is concerned, the evidence of PW4
also does not inspire the confidence of the Court. The evidence
of PW16 and PW18 also not come to the aid of the prosecution
and the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who claim that they are the
eyewitnesses, does not inspire the confidence of the Court, the
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
Trial Court has failed to take note of all these factors while
considering material available on record.
31. It is also important to note that the place of incident
is fully covered with thorn bush and the same is admitted by
PW4 and even PW1 and PW2, who claim that they are the
eyewitnesses that they went to the spot, where the bush level is
very high and when such being the case, the Trial Court has
committed an error in coming to such a conclusion. No doubt,
the Trial Court has taken note of the evidence of PW15-Doctor
that it is a case of homicidal death and considered the nature of
injuries that there are nine injuries as per Ex.P.14-P.M.Report.
No doubt, it is a case of homicidal death and though defence was
taken by the accused that it is not a case of homicide, but the
evidence available before the Court is very clear that it is a case
of homicidal. However, only on the ground that it is a case of
homicidal, the Court cannot fix the accused into the case of
murder in the absence of either direct evidence or circumstantial
evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial
Court has committed an error in believing the case of the
prosecution and failed to take note of the delay in lodging the
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
complaint and the motive is not proved. The evidence of the
prosecution not inspires confidence of the Court and even the
evidence of PW16 and 18/Investigating Officers also not inspires
the confidence of the Court. All these factors were not taken note
of by the Trial Court while convicting the accused. Hence, it is a
fit case to reverse the judgment of the Trial Court since the Trial
Court lost sight of the settled principles in a case of appreciating
direct evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence. Hence, we
answer the point accordingly that the Trial Court has committed
an error in convicting the accused.
32. The Trial Court observed that the wife of the
deceased, being victim in the case, is at liberty to approach the
appropriate authority seeking compensation under Victim
Compensation Scheme, which observation is erroneous. The Trial
Court ought to have directed the DLSA to compensate the Victim
who is the wife of the deceased. Hence, we deem it appropriate
to direct the District Legal Services Authority, Ballari, to consider
the case under Section 357A for awarding appropriate
compensation.
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023
HC-KAR
33. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The present appeal filed by the accused is allowed.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ballari
dated 29.04.2023 in S.C. No. 56/2020 against the accused-
Shekar S/o.Babu for the offences punishable under Section 302
of IPC is set aside. The accused, who is in custody, is set at
liberty forthwith in view of his acquittal.
Fine amount deposited by the accused, if any, shall be
refunded to the appellant-accused on proper identification.
The District Legal Services Authority, Ballari, is directed to
consider the case under Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., for awarding
appropriate compensation to the victim, who is the wife of the
deceased, under the victim compensation scheme. Registry is
directed to communicate this order to the District Legal Services
Authority, Ballari, forthwith.
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4460-DB
CRL.A No. 100357 of 2023HC-KAR
Registry is also directed to communicate the operative
portion of the order to the concerned Jail Authorities through
email, forthwith to set the accused at liberty, if not required in
any other case.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGESd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
BVV & YAN
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18
[ad_1]
Source link
