Karnataka High Court
Smt. Basamma Kumbar W/O Sharanappa … vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH 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.100114 OF 2023 (372(CR.PC)/413(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SMT. BASAMMA KUMBAR
W/O. SHARANAPPA KUMBAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. KHAIRAWADAGI,
TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
BY AMEENGAD POLICE STATION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.03.09
12:46:50 +0530 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
2. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. BHIMAPPA SARUR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. KHAIRAWADAGI,
TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101.
3. SRI. GANDAPPA S/O. KAMALAPPA SARUR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. KHAIRAWADAGI, TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. SRI. CHANNABASAYYA @ MUTTU @ MUTTAYYA
S/O. SIDDAYYA KARIHOLIMATH,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. KHAIRAWADAGI,
TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101.
5. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA NAGARAL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. KALLAGONAL,
TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL SPP FOR R1;
SRI.ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI.J.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI.PRAKASH R.BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 372 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN S.C.NO. 33/2018 AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 10.01.2023 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOTE, IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 33/2018 AND CONVICT THE
ACCUSED NOS.1, 2, 4 AND 5 OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 302 AND 201 R/W. SEC. 149 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned
counsel appearing for the respondents and also the learned
Additional S.P.P.
2. This appeal is filed against judgment of acquittal
dated 10.01.2023 passed by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkote (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) in
S.C.No.33/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 302
and 201 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short,
‘IPC‘) and prays this Court to set aside the judgment of acquittal
and convict the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 for the above
offences.
3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that
deceased Smt. Hanamavva was the daughter of accused No.1.
The accused No.1 belongs to Kuruba community. Deceased
Sangamesh S/o Sharanappa Kumbar, belongs to Kumbar caste.
Both Hanamavva and Sangamesh had married about one and
half months back. The accused No.1 felt insulted as his daughter
had married a boy belonging to other community. Hence, the
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
accused No.1 along with other accused had hatched up a plan to
commit the murder of both of them. The accused had invited
Hanamavva and Sangamesh to attend pooja in the land where
there was sugarcane crop and on 02.12.2017, at about 03.00
p.m., when deceased Sangamesh and Hanamavva came to the
above said land to attend the pooja, accused Nos.1 to 3 had
assaulted on the head of Sangamesh by covering iron rods with a
white cloth. Thereafter, the accused No.4 had taken the dead
body of deceased Sangamesh in a Car bearing Reg.No.KA.04-
B6502 and the accused had also taken Hanamavva in the above
said Car to Ramathal road and at about 12.00 a.m., all the
accused had crushed Hanamavva with the help of a tractor. It is
also alleged that the accused had crushed the dead bodies of
Hanamavva and Sangamesh with the help of a tractor and
attempted to demonstrate that the deceased have died due to
the accident. When the bodies were found, case was registered
and FIR was issued and thereafter, investigation was conducted.
The investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses and
arrested the accused persons and recoveries are made and
thereafter, collected the P.M report and after the completion of
the investigation, filed the charge sheet.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. The Trial Court having received the charge sheet,
taken the cognizance and framed the charges and accused did
not plead guilty and claims trial and hence, the prosecution
examined PW.1 to PW.24 and also got marked the documents at
Exs.P1 to P119 and got marked M.O.1 to M.O.39. On closure of
the evidence of prosecution side, the accused persons were
subjected to 313 statement and accused persons have not laid
any defence evidence. The Trial Court having appreciated both
oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that in
order to come to a conclusion that the death of both of them is
homicidal, there is no any positive evidence before the Court and
the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not conclusive,
clinching and convincing to establish the homicidal death of both
Sangamesh and Hanamavva. The Trial Court also having
considered both oral and documentary evidence came to the
conclusion that motive is also not proved and the same is a weak
piece of evidence before the Court. Apart from that, the Trial
Court also not accepted the case of prosecution with regard to
the extra judicial confession and so also, the recovery of material
objects and comes to the conclusion that even material objects
which were seized did not suggest any incriminating evidence
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
against the accused persons and thus, benefit of doubt extended
in favour of the accused and acquitted the accused persons of
the charges leveled against them.
5. Being aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal
is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel
appearing for the appellant before this Court extracted the
evidence of each of the witnesses. Counsel appearing for the
appellant would vehemently contend that the trial Court
committed an error in not appreciating the evidence in a proper
perspective. The counsel would vehemently contend that the
prosecution has proved the motive for committing the murder by
examining PW.2, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.15 and hence, the Trial
Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of these witnesses
who have specifically stated about the intention, motive of the
accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased
Sangamesh and Hanamavva.
6. The counsel further submitted that the prosecution
by examining the PW.5 and PW.15 has proved the extra judicial
confession made by the accused before PW.6. Though PW.6 has
turned hostile for the reason that she is the wife of accused No.1
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
and the said evidence ought to have been considered by the Trial
Court even though witness has turned hostile. The counsel also
vehemently contends that the prosecution has proved recovery
of weapons at the hands of the accused and the witnesses to the
recovery panchanama have supported the case and prosecution.
Even the doctor who has examined the weapons has given the
opinion that murder can be caused even by the weapons which
are used by the accused. The PW.3 and CW.6 are the panchas to
Exs.P13, 15, 30, 35, 36, 38 and 49. PW.3 is also panch witness
to Exs.P9 and Ex.P10 i.e., seizure panchanamas- clothes of the
deceased Sangamesh and Hanamavva. Spot panchanama
conducted at the instance of mother of the deceased Sangamesh
as per Exs.P11, P17, P18, the seizure panchanama mobiles
belongs to the accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 and tractor seizure
panchanama as per Ex.P20. Spot panchanama conducted at the
instance of accused No.2 as per Ex.P28 and Ex.P35 and seizure
of mobile at the instance of accused No.1, Ex.P38, seizure of
M.O.31 to M.O.35 at the instance of the accused No.1, Ex.P49,
seizure of motorbike at the instance of the accused No.1.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
7. The counsel would vehemently contend that even
when all these material objects are recovered at the instance of
the accused persons and Trial judge failed to consider the
material available on record. The counsel submits that both the
deceased are aged about 19 and 24 years respectively at the
time of their death. The counsel also would submit that both of
them married and belongs to different caste and it is nothing but
a ‘Maryada Hatya’ within the span of one and half month of
their marriage. The Trial judge failed to consider all the material
available on record and the material collected by the prosecution
and placed before the Court establishes the each link of motive
and also recovery for committing the murder. Though case is
rest upon the circumstantial evidence, ought to have taken note
of the circumstances under which the crime was committed.
8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2 and 3 i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 in his argument would
vehemently contend that even though, mother of the deceased
Sangamesh was examined as PW.5, her evidence is not
supported the case of prosecution and so also, the witness
PW.12 and evidence of PW.12 also not supports the case of the
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
prosecution. The counsel also vehemently contend that even
though, counsel appearing for the respondents, i.e., accused
No.1 and 2, would contend that the admissions are the part of
the relevant witnesses is very clear that the family of the
Sangamesh only performed the marriage, even though the
family members of Hanamavva participated in the marriage and
they performed the marriage and one photograph also depicts
the same. If such marriage was performed by the family of
Hanamavva, question of having any enmity or motive to commit
the murder of both Hanamavva as well as Sangamesh doesn’t
arise.
9. The counsel appearing for respondent No.4, i.e.,
accused No.4 also would contend that he is the owner of the Car
and nothing is found during the course of investigation that the
said Car was involved in the alleged crime and also even not
found any blood stain mark on the Car, that the Car was used in
committing the crime and he has been falsely implicated in the
case. Hence, the Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and no
material before this Court to reverse the finding of the Trial
Court. The counsel also vehemently contend that Trial Court
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
rightly considered that medical evidence available before the
Court though it is a case of prosecution theory that at the first
instance, Sangamesh was assaulted with the weapon, iron rod
and there is no any positive evidence before the Court that the
injuries found on the Sangamesh was caused by using the said
iron rod and even also, with regard to crushing the body of both
of them, no such injuries were found and hence, the Trial Court
rightly comes to the conclusion that medical evidence also not
conclusive to come to such a conclusion that it is a case of
homicidal.
10. The counsel appearing for the State-Additional S.P.P,
would submit that the Trial Court has taken note of the case of
the prosecution and also both oral and documentary evidence
available on record.
11. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
appellant/victim and the counsel appearing for the accused and
also considering the submission of the Additional S.P.P and also
on considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal
memo as well as in the oral submissions, the point that would
arise for the consideration of this Court are:
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
i. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
passing the judgment acquittal for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and
Section 201 of IPC and whether it requires
interference of this Court?
ii. What order?
12. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant
and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and this
Court also while considering the case of prosecution in brief
mentioned above, it is the specific case that it was a case of
homicidal that too for, both the victims have married and both of
them belongs to different caste and hence, accused were having
an ill-will against both of them. Therefore, caused the murder
and pretended that it was an accident. The Trial judge having
considered both oral and documentary evidence, though PW.1 to
PW.24 were examined and particularly considering the material
available on record with regard to whether it is a case of
homicidal or accidental, by taking note of evidence of PW.21,
who conducted the post mortem and found the nature of injuries
on Sangamesh as well as Hanamavva and the same is mentioned
in paragraph No.43 and 44 and while coming to the conclusion,
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
whether it is a case of homicidal or not, in paragraph No.45,
taken note of so far as the injuries on the dead body of
Sangamesh is concerned, that the injuries could be caused with
the help of hard and blunt force. It is the specific case of the
prosecution that the accused had committed murder of
Sangamesh in the sugar cane field by using iron rod and brought
the dead body to the spot where it was found. Therefore, it can
be said that the dead body was shifted to the spot from the place
of murder. Therefore, in order to find out the position of dead
body after the offence caused, proof of post mortem staining
plays a vital role. Unfortunately, PW.21 has not noted anything
about the post mortem staining in his post mortem report which
is marked as Ex.P75. This witness was also subjected to cross-
examination, and in the cross-examination, PW.21 has admitted
that he has not mentioned anything with respect to post mortem
staining in his report.
13. During the course of cross examination, PW.21 has
also admitted that in case of accident, a person can sustain
injuries which were found on the dead body of Sangamesh and
the Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
PW.21 while considering whether it is a case of homicidal or not
and even with regard to the definite conclusion, whether it is a
homicidal or not.
14. In paragraph No.46, discussed that the injuries found
on the body of Sangamesh is concerned, two views are possible.
One view is that there is a possibility of sustaining injuries if hit
with hard and blunt force. Second view is that the injuries could
be caused if met with an accident. The Trial judge having taken
note of two views, it comes to the conclusion that the
prosecution fails to prove that it is a case of homicidal and Court
also cannot comes to a definite conclusion that the medical
evidence adduced by the prosecution is not conclusive, clinching
and convincing to establish the homicidal death of the
Sangamesh and Hanamavva. The Trial Court also even taken
note of the nature of injuries sustained by the Hanamavva that
she has suffered fracture of 4th to 9th ribs. Apart from feet, she
seems to have suffered contusion on left side of face, left elbow
joint, left shoulder, right elbow joint or abdomen and left leg. If
really, Hanamavva was crushed under a tractor, definitely the
joint wheels of a tractor would have crushed the body of
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
Hanamavva and not found any such injuries. The injuries found
on the dead body of Hanamavva could be caused by the
application of hard and blunt force and hence, the Trial Court
taken note of both the nature of injuries of Hanamavva and
Sangamesh in paragraph Nos.43 and 44 and comes to the
conclusion that there is no clenching evidence. Having re-
appreciated the evidence of the witness, PW.21, the doctor who
conducted the post mortem and also considering the nature of
injuries found and even if the case of the prosecution is accepted
to an extent that the vehicle ran over on the body of Sangamesh
and also Hanamavva, the nature of injuries would be different
and not like crushing the body by using the vehicle and hence,
we do not find any ground in coming to the other conclusion that
the trial Court has committed an error in coming to the
conclusion that, the same is not conclusive and there is no any
clinching evidence.
15. Now with regard to the circumstantial evidence in
respect of proving of the guilt of the accused is concerned, the
Apex Court in the Judgment of Sharad Birdichandra Sarda Vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 Cr.L.J., 1738, as well
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
as in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in State of
Subramanya v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 11
SCC 255, also reiterated the Panchsheela of the circumstantial
evidence is concerned. Having taken note of the principles laid
down in the judgments, the Apex Court held that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can
be said to be fully established.
“M. Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 302, 201 and
34 – Circumstantial evidence -Conditions that
to be fulfilled by the prosecution – Reiterated
Held:
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. The Supreme 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”.
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.
(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,
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature 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.
These five golden principles constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the
judgment remains essentially inferential. The
inference is drawn from the established facts as
the circumstances lead to particular inferences.
The Court has to draw an inference with respect
to whether the chain of circumstances is
complete, and when the circumstances therein
are collectively considered, the same must lead
only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused
alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question.
All the circumstances so established must be of a
conclusive nature, and consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.”
16. In keeping the settled principles of law while
considering the case of circumstantial evidence and this Court
has to re-examine the material available on record. The PW.5,
who is the mother of the Sangamesh, who is the appellant before
the Court also, her evidence is also not consistent with regard to
the motive is concerned and though it is a case of the
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
prosecution that there was a motive to commit the murder, but
the murder due to both of them have married, married belongs
to the different caste of Kuruba community as well as Kumbara
community and the father, that is accused no. 1 was having ill
will against both of them. But the evidence of the witness is very
clear that there was a clear admission in performing the
marriage by the accused family itself. When the accused family
itself performed the marriage, question of having any enmity
against both the couple who married, it is a weak piece of
evidence and the same has been observed by the trial Court
while coming to the conclusion that motive is not established.
17. The other ground urged by the appellant before this
Court also with regard to the extra judicial confession is
concerned, here there is no any extra judicial confession made
by the accused persons with the PW.6. That is only a statement
made by the accused No.1, wife who is the PW.6 and when such
being the extra judicial confession is urged by the prosecution
and unless the very accused makes such statement, the question
of considering the same as extra judicial confession does not
arise and the trial Court rightly appreciated the same and comes
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
to the conclusion that no such extra judicial confession by the
accused and the same also not come to the aid of the case of the
prosecution.
18. The other ground urged by the counsel appearing for
the appellant before this Court is with regard to the recovery of
the incriminating materials and witness who has been examined
as PW.3 before the Court as recovery of material objects is
concerned. Trial Court in paragraph No.54 in detail has taken
note of each and every aspect of recovery of the articles. PW3
supported the case of the prosecution. But during the course of
cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he is not
aware of the contents of the recovery mahazar and also in the
cross examination in the very first line he admits that deceased
Sanghamesh is his sister’s son and CW6 is also his brother. In
the cross examination also he categorically admits that he did
not mention the contents of panchanama and also not aware of
the contents of panchanama. Hence the trial Court comes to the
conclusion that evidence of PW3 is not sufficient with regard to
the recovery of incriminating materials and being relative, the
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
same cannot be a ground but there must be consistency in his
evidence.
19. No doubt the other vehicles, the tractor and the car
were seized and also the owner of the car is also arrayed as
accused No. 4 and no any such blood stains were found when
both the vehicles are seized and there is no any incriminating
materials were recovered against the accused persons by seizing
the vehicles. It is also settled law that while reversing the
finding of the trial Court, that too in a case of circumstantial
evidence the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
circumstantial evidence, whether the circumstances point out the
role of the accused in committing the offence, which is discussed
in Vidyalakshmi Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2019 SC
1397 and also in Sharad Birdichand Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 1984 (4) SCC 116, wherein it is
categorically held with regard to five steps i.e. Panchashila, to
be satisfied in a case of circumstantial evidence that each chain
link must be established and if it is not found common, the same
cannot be relied upon.
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
20. The present case is also based on the circumstantial
evidence. Now this Court also would like to rely upon the
judgment of the Apex Court with regard to exercising the
jurisdiction of appellate court. That Apex Court also in a recent
judgment in Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Another
reported in 2022 3 SCC 471 in paragraph number 30 has
considered various earlier judgments on the scope of
interference in a case of acquittal, wherein it is held that there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence that is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured
his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court.
“44. This Court also would like to rely upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in KANNAIYA vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC
ONLINE SC 2270, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph
No.58 referred the decision in PANKAJ vs. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN reported in (2016) 16 SCC 192, wherein it
was emphasized that when the genesis and manner of the
incident itself are doubtful, conviction cannot be sustained.
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023HC-KAR
The Apex Court also held that it is a well-settled principle of
law that when the genesis and the manner of the incident is
doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted. When the
evidence produced has neither quality nor credibility, it
would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence.
Similarly, in BHAGWAN SAHAI vs. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN, the Apex Court reiterated that once the
prosecution is found to have suppressed the original and
genesis of the occurrence, the only proper course is to
grant the accused the benefit of doubt.
45. This Court also would like to rely upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in SHAIL KUMARI vs. STATE
OF CHHATTISGARH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE
SC 1640, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph No.6
referring the judgment in SHARAD BIRDHICHAND
SARDA vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in
(1984) 4 SCC 116 in paragraph No.151 observed that it is
well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its
own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the
weakness of the defence. It is not the law that where there
is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same
could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea
which is not accepted by a Court. The Apex Court also in
paragraph No.152 referring number of citations of the Apex
Court observed that there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to lease any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
it must be such as to show that within all human probability
the act must have been done by the accused.
46. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
of the Apex Court in BABU SAHEBAGOUDA
RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149, wherein
the Apex Court has held that legally, reversal of acquittal,
is permissible only when the impugned acquittal suffers
from patent perversity and based on a misreading/
omission to consider material available on record, reversal of
acquittal, held, also permissible when no two reasonable
views are possible and only the view consistent with the
guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence
available on record.”
21. Having Considered the oral and documentary
evidence available on record and also we have reassessed both
oral and documentary evidence, considering both oral and
documentary evidence there is no any clinching evidence before
this Court to connect the accused persons that it is a case of
homicidal as well as the accused persons have played their role
in taking away the life of two persons. At the first instance case
was registered that it was an accident when they were
proceeding in a two wheeler. But subsequent to the filing of the
complaint, the I.O. has investigated the matter and filed the
charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 302 and
Section 201 of IPC. In order to substantiate the same, we do not
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023
HC-KAR
find any material to come to a other conclusion. While re-
appreciating the evidence available on record it is trite law that
while reversing the finding of the trial Court in view of the
discussion made above, the scope of the appeal unless the
cogent evidence is placed before the Court by the Prosecution,
that accused persons only have done the act, question of
reversing the judgment doesn’t arise. Hence we do not find any
ground to come to a other conclusion. Hence we answered the
point accordingly.
22. The trial judge failed to consider Section 357A of
Cr.P.C. Even though in a case of acquittal the Court has to take
note of the factual aspects of each case and in the case on hand
both the victims are aged about 19 years and 24 years
respectively and both the families have lost their young girl and
also the son. The trial Court ought to have taken note of the
said fact to invoke Section 357 of Cr.P.C. to award the
compensation. Hence we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to
direct the D.L.S.A. of the Bagalkot District to invoke Section 357-
A of Cr.P.C. to consider the case and award the compensation.
In view of the discussions made above we passed the following:
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3497-DB
CRL.A No. 100114 of 2023HC-KAR
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
The District Legal Service Authority, Bagalkot District is
directed to consider Section 357-A for awarding compensation to
the family of both deceased Sanghamesh and Hanamavva.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGESd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
RKM, BVV
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11