Karnataka High Court
Jambayya @ Jambanna S/O Narasappa vs The State on 16 April, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200093 OF 2020
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
JAMBAYYA @ JAMBANNA S/O NARASAPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O: NEAR KENCHU MAREMMA TEMPLE,
HARIJANAWADA, TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH
Digitally signed MARKET YARD POLICE STATION,
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE
RECORDS IN S.C.NO.48/2016 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DIST & SESSIONS
JUDGE, RAICHUR FOR CONVICTING THE APPELLANT BY ITS
JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2020 AND 31.01.2020 PASSED IN
S.C.NO.48/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 09.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Assailing with the judgment that is rendered by the
Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur
in S.C.No.48/2016 dated 29.01.2020, accused therein
preferred this appeal.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh G. Doddamani, learned
counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Siddaling P. Patil,
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor who represents
the respondent – State.
3. The case of the prosecution if narrated in
narrow compass is that deceased – Bheemakka
(hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ for brevity) is the
wife of PW.5. PW.5, deceased and their children were
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
residing at Masdoddi village. The deceased used to leave
the village in the morning for attending coolie work and
used to return in the evening. On one day she left the
house as usual to attend coolie work but she did not
return. Her husband – PW.5 and PW.7 searched for her
but in vain. PW.5 went to the house of PW.6 who is the
elder brother of the deceased and enquired about
whereabouts of the deceased. PW.6 informed PW.5 that
deceased did not approach his house. PW.5 thereafter
came to know that PW.1 lodged a complaint stating that a
woman was raped and murdered in his area. On that
PW.5 went to RIMS Hospital, Raichur and found that the
woman found dead is none other than his wife. PW.1
informed PW.5 that the appellant raped the deceased and
killed her. Basing on the complaint given by PW.1 a case
was registered and was investigated into. Appellant was
arrested and was sent to judicial custody.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
4. Charges were framed against the appellant for
the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC
and trial was held. On subjecting the evidence of PW.1 to
PW.18, Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs.1 to 5 to scrutiny, Trial
Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to
establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC
and thereby acquitted him of the said charge. Having
found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC, he was sentenced to imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment
of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
5. Projecting that the prosecution miserably failed
to establish the charge against the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and that the
appellant is innocent, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever on record
to show that the appellant was seen with the deceased at
any time soon before the incident or for that matter at any
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
other time whatsoever. The case of the prosecution is
that bite marks were found on the dead body of the
deceased and that those bite marks were through the acts
of the appellant. Though prosecution contended that
dental impression of the appellant was taken, no proof was
produced to show that said dental impression established
that resultant bite marks were due to the acts of the
appellant. There are number of inconsistencies and
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
which were ignored by the Trial Court. The case totally
rests on circumstantial evidence and therefore prosecution
is required to establish each and every fact of the case so
as to connect each link of the chain, but prosecution failed
in its attempt in doing so. Learned counsel thereby sought
to allow the appeal and to acquit the appellant.
6. Per contra, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor contended that it is the appellant who took the
deceased to his house with a request to attend coolie work
at his house and on taking her to his house, he sent out
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
the inmates of the house, assaulted her and when she
resisted the acts of the appellant, he tied her hands, filled
her mouth with a cloth so that neighbours will not hear the
cries, thereafter brutally raped her and ultimately killed
her by throttling her neck. Learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor submitted that basing on the evidence
produced, Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for
the offence of murder and thus the judgment of the Trial
Court which is well reasoned needs no interference.
7. As per the version of the prosecution dead body
was found at the house of the appellant. Said house as
per the version of the prosecution is bearing No.8-10-56.
The evidence of PW.14 in this regard is that he is working
as Assistant Engineer in PWD Sub Division, Raichur and
basing on the letter addressed by CPI West Circle, Raichur,
he prepared rough sketch of the spot when it was shown
to him by a constable by name Bheemaraya. Rough
sketch prepared is marked as Ex.P19. PW.14 during the
course of cross-examination admitted that the house
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
number in Ex.P19 is mentioned as ‘9-10-56’. PW.16 who
issued Ex.P21 house extract stated that House No.8-10-56
(new) is in the name of Maremma W/o. Basayya and
House No.8-10-56 (old) is in the name of Maremma and
Narassappa S/o. Narasappa. Both houses are located at
Harijanawada, Raichur. During the course of cross-
examination he stated that police did not specifically ask
the extract of House No.8-10-56 (N) or House No.8-10-56
(O). He further sated that the House No.9-10-56 comes in
Maddipet area.
8. Now coming to the evidence of PW.1 who set
the law into motion by presenting Ex.P1 complaint, he
stated that a lady was found dead at their street. He did
not say that the dead body was found in the house of
appellant or atleast at a house. PW.1 during the course of
cross-examination admitted that the appellant is not
having house in their street and that his house is at Medar
Oni. Thus prosecution miserably failed to establish where
exactly the incident occurred and from where the dead
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
body was shifted to hospital by police. Though PW.3
stated that Ex.P7 photograph was obtained from the house
of the appellant, he who was cited as a panch witness
deposed that he was called to police station for
panchanama and he does not remember the purpose of
the said panchanama. During the course of cross-
examination, he stated that he do not know the contents
of said panchanama. The evidence of PW.4 is also to the
same effect. As per the evidence of PW.5 who is the
husband of the deceased PW.6 who is the elder brother of
the deceased and PW.7, they were informed by PW.1 that
the appellant herein took the deceased for attending coolie
work and that she was then raped and killed. But PW.1
gave evidence that he does not know the woman who died
and the cause for her death.
9. The version of the prosecution is that PW.10
saw the appellant taking the deceased to his house.
Prosecution tried to establish the last seen theory through
the evidence of PW.10. But PW.10 stated that she has not
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
seen the appellant taking a lady to his house. After PW.10
was declared as hostile, she was subjected to cross-
examination by learned Public Prosecutor. PW.10 denied
the suggestion of learned Public Prosecutor that on
26.02.2016 at 10.00 a.m. appellant brought 30 years old
lady to his house on the ground that his house needs to be
cleaned, sent his younger brother and sister to coolie work
forcibly and that she saw the said incident.
10. Prosecution tried to connect the injuries found
on the dead body of the deceased to the acts of the
appellant herein more particularly, the bite marks. PW.12
who conducted postmortem examination stated that he
found bite marks over face and external genitalia. During
the course of cross-examination he deposed that he
cannot say how many teeth bite marks were found on the
dead body. He also sated that he did not mention the
type of teeth appearing at the place of wound. The
evidence of PW.15 is that he examined the appellant,
prepared his dental impression and handed over the said
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
impression to the Investigating Officer. He also sated that
police brought photos of dead body and postmortem
examination report and he verified them and opined that
bite marks forthcoming from dead body of the deceased as
per the postmortem examination report, are likely to be
caused by the teeth of the appellant. PW.15 during the
course of cross-examination admitted that method and
material used to obtain teeth impression is not mentioned
in the letter given by him. PW.15 admitted that Ex.P12
postmortem examination report discloses the word ‘bite
marks’ but not the total number of bite marks and specific
teeth which caused them. By the evidence of PW.15, it is
clear that he without having the basic requirements of the
measurement of the bite marks found over the dead body
of the deceased and the measurements of the teeth as per
dental impression, he simply stated that bite marks found
on the dead body as per postmortem report are likely to
be caused by the teeth of the appellant. PW.9 though
stated that he can identify the tooth set seized by the
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
police, in the deposition of PW.9 there is an endorsement
that the tooth set of plaster of paris containing tooth
impression of the appellant is misplaced and is not traced
in the office. Thus absolutely there is no material on
record to connect the appellant with the crime in question.
Neither the scene of offence is established by the
prosecution, the last scene theory was proved nor the
injuries including bite marks found on the dead body of
the deceased were connected to the appellant herein.
11. With a submission that fundamental and basic
requirements to connect the appellant with the crime were
not established and that the case which rests on
circumstantial evidence should be established by the
prosecution without leaving any room of doubt, learned
counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Sharad
Biridhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
AIR 1984 SC 1622, wherein Hon’ble Court referring to the
decision in Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
1952 SC 343) at paragraph Nos.152 and 153 of the
judgment held as under:
“152. A close analysis of this decision
would show that the following conditions
must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court
indicated that the circumstances concerned
‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’
established. There is not only a grammatical
but a legal distinction between ‘may be
proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2
SCC 793: (AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the
following observations were made:
“certainly, it is a primary principle that
the accused must be and not merely may be
guilty before a Court can convict and the
mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must
be’ is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions”
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
(2) 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.
(3) the circumstance should be of a
conclusive and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence
so complete 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.
153. These five golden principles, if we
may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the
proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence.”
12. With no second thought we say that the
aforementioned five golden principles were not applied by
the Trial Court to the facts of the case. On meticulous
examination of the entire evidence that is brought on
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
record, we infer that prosecution attempted to connect the
appellant with the crime but could not do so. Establishing
cause of death alone is not sufficient. It is for the
prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that
such death is resultant of the acts of the person charged
of the said offence. Thus we ultimately hold that the Trial
Court went wrong in placing reliance upon the evidence
produced by the prosecution and convicting the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
Therefore the appeal is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
I) Appeal is allowed.
II) The judgment that is rendered by the
Court of II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Raichur in
S.C.No.48/2016 dated 29.01.2020 is set
aside.
III) Appellant is found not guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 302 of
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3316-DB
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2020
HC-KAR
IPC and consequently he is acquitted of
the said charge under Section 235(1) of
Criminal Procedure Code.
IV) Appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith
insofar as this case is concerned.
V) Amount if any paid towards fine shall be
refunded to the appellant/accused.
VI) Registry to communicate this judgment to
the concerned Jail Authorities forthwith
through approved electronic mode to
facilitate immediate release of the
appellant.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33
CT:SI