Karnataka High Court
Vishwanath S/O. Mallappa Chigari vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100496 OF 2023 (C)
BETWEEN:
VISHWANATH S/O. MALLAPPA CHIGARI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHELAVADI, TQ. NAVALGUND,
DIST. DHARWAD-582208.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
PIN-580011, NAVALGUND CIRCLE POLICE STATION.
...RESPONDENT
VINAYAKA (BY SRI. M.B GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
BV
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
Digitally signed (415(2) OF BNSS-2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL APPEAL
by VINAYAKA B V
Date: 2026.03.27 AND TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
12:26:09 +0530 21.10.2022 AND SENTENCE DATED 27.10.2022 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN S.C.NO.
154/2019 IN PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 307 OF IPC AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, 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
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
also the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent/State.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 21.10.2022 and order of sentence dated 27.10.2022
passed in SC No.154/2019 by the learned IV Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Dharwad (for short, ‘Trial Court’) for the offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and prays this
Court to acquit the accused.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution before
the trial Court is that the complainant by name Devakka, mother
of the victim, lodged a complaint stating that she had performed
the marriage of her daughter 7 years back with the accused and
in the said wedlock, both of them having three children. The
accused, who is the son-in-law of PW1, was suspecting the
fidelity of the victim and was ill-treating and assaulting her
without any reasons. Hence, the daughter of PW1 came and
settled in her house. But in view of the intervention of elders of
the village, advised the accused and inspite of it, he continued
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
the ill-treatment on the victim. That on 15.05.2019, the accused
went to Kalakeri and sought permission to take his wife and
children to his village Shalavadi, as there is Guru Shanteshwara
Jatra in the village and accordingly, the complainant (PW1) along
with her daughter and grandchildren went to Shalavadi. On the
same day, after having dinner at around 10 o’clock, the
complainant and her grandchildren had slept in front of the
house and her daughter Smt.Lakshmi and son-in-law i.e.
accused had slept in the room inside the house. After sometime,
the complainant’s daughter Smt.Lakshmi came out of the house
with hue and cry; at that time, the accused followed her with
chopper in his hand and abused her in a filthy language and with
an intention to kill her, inflicted the injury on her neck, head and
hand and caused the grievous injuries. When the complainant
went to rescue her daughter, the accused also assaulted the
complainant with the same weapon on her neck and hand and
caused grievous injuries. On hearing the hue and cry, the
neighbours came and pacified the dispute and at that time, the
accused ran away from the spot. Later, the persons gathered
there, shifted both the injured to the government hospital for
treatment. The said Lakshmi died in KIMS Hospital, Hubli, due to
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
severe injuries sustained by her. Based on the complaint of PW1,
the police had registered the case at the first instance for an
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and thereafter,
invoked Sections 302 and 504 of IPC.
4. The law was set in motion based on the complaint of
PW1 in registering the Crime No.61 of 2019 and the IO
conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet and on
filing of the charge sheet, case was registered as CC and
thereafter matter was committed to the Sessions Court. The
Sessions Judge, having secured the accused, framed the
charges, and accused did not plead guilty and claims trial, and
hence prosecution examined PW1 to PW18 and also got marked
documents as per Ex.P1 to P41 and also the material objects at
MO.1 to MO.14. The trial Judge, having concluded the evidence
of the prosecution, subjected the accused for 313 statement and
accused denied the incriminating evidence, but not led any
defence evidence. The trial Judge, having considered both oral
and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the
evidence of PW1 is consistent and she also sustained the injury
and an attempt was made to take away the life of the victim and
also on account of the injuries sustained by her daughter, she
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
was succumbed to the injuries and therefore, convicted the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of
IPC, but acquitted for the offence under Section 504 of IPC.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the
present appeal is filed before this Court.
5. The counsel appearing for the appellant in his
argument would vehemently contend that the Trial Judge has not
considered the medical report and the complainant intentionally
deposed before the Court that the accused has taken away the
life of his wife. The trial Judge has committed a serious error in
convicting the appellant, relying upon the evidence of PW1-
complainant and PW7, who is the minor daughter of the accused
and the victim, and also the evidence of PW9-relative and PW11-
brothers of PW1, and only considered the interested witnesses,
but failed to ascertain the truth, like separating the grain from
the chop and the Trial Court has drawn an adverse inference
against the appellant. The counsel appearing for the appellant
also brought to the notice of this Court that afterthought,
statement of PW-7 was recorded before the learned Magistrate
that too after one month of the incident and her evidence cannot
be believed. The counsel also vehemently contends that the trial
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
Judge has committed an error in considering the extrajudicial
confession of PW9 and also failed to consider the medical
document or independent witnesses other than the relative and
neighbour. He further submits that PW6 was turned completely
hostile and PW5 also supported the case of the prosecution in
part, but overall appreciation of evidence is erroneous. The
counsel for the appellant, during the course of his argument,
would vehemently contend that there was no any intention for
the accused to take away the life of his wife and if he really
intended to take away the life, he would have taken the life of
the wife, when she went back and stayed in her parental house,
but only for the purpose of showing the festival to his children
and also wife, he brought her back; and this circumstance is not
considered by the trial Court.
6. The counsel for the appellant would also vehemently
contend that an act was done under the grave and provocation
and hence, it will not come within the purview of Section 302 of
IPC and it comes within the purview of Exceptions to Section 300
of IPC. The trial Judge even not discussed the same while
considering the material on record as to whether it comes within
the purview of Exception to Section 300 of IPC. The counsel
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
would vehemently contend that with regard to the Exception is
concerned, the trial Judge has not meticulously taken note of
while discussing the same in paragraph No.46 and therefore, it is
a fit case to bring the case within the purview of Exceptions to
Section 300 of IPC and failed to consider the evidence available
on record with a proper perspective, which has resulted in
miscarriage of justice.
7. The counsel for the appellant in support of his
argument relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar Vs. State of Chattisgarh1 and
brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in the said
judgment in paragraphs-7 and 8 and even considered the
judgment of K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra2,
wherein the discussion was made with regard to the definition of
“Provocation” and held that when the quarrel has taken place,
loss of self-control in the facts and situations would come to the
aid of the accused and also brought to notice of this Court the
discussion made in Paragraph-12 and also Exceptions were
discussed in Paragraph-13; and in Paragraph-14, the judgment
1
Crl. A. No.1124/2022, dated 02.08.2022
2
1962 Supp (1) SCR 567
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
of K. M. Nanavati (supra) and the judgment in Budhi Singh
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh3 was discussed and the Apex
Court comes to the conclusion that on the night of the
occurrence, the deceased had consumed alcohol and had told the
appellant to leave the house, if not, he would kill the appellant.
There was sudden loss of self-control on account of a ‘slow burn’
reaction followed by the final and immediate provocation. The
counsel brought to the notice of the paragraph-17 of the said
judgment, wherein the Apex Court modified the sentence of
imprisonment to the sentence already undergone. The counsel
would submit that in the case on hand also, the accused is in
custody since 2019 i.e. more than 7 years.
8. The counsel for the appellant also relies upon
judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Valson Vs.
State of Kerala4 and brought to the notice of this Court the
Paragraph-4, wherein the Apex Court comes to the conclusion
that the facts are sufficient to show that the injuries sustained by
the deceased, though in the ordinary course, is sufficient to
cause death, would not have been intended to be inflicted by the
3
(2012) 13 SCC 664
4
AIR 2002 SC 2339
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
brother assailant and brought the case within the purview of
Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
9. The appellant’s counsel also relied upon the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jithan Bora Vs.
State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi5 and brought to the notice of this
Court, the discussion made by the Delhi High Court, particularly
at Paragraph-41, wherein it has held that sequence of events
shows that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment and
without any premeditation. It was the deceased, who first went
to the appellant’s house in the middle of the night, and
intervened in a verbal altercation between the appellant and his
wife. Although the appellant followed him with a knife in his hand
and was exhorting that he would kill him, the same, by itself,
does not conclusively establish an intention to kill. At best, it
indicates that passions were running high. The counsel referring
this paragraph would contend that in the case on hand also,
even though the accused came with weapon, but he was not
having any intention and hence it is a fit case to bring the case
within the purview of Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC.
5
Crl.A.No.85/2024, decided on 18.03.2026
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
10. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the
respondent/State would vehemently contend that the case on
hand will not come within the purview of Exceptions to Section
300 of IPC and there was no any such provocation. The learned
Addl. SPP would vehemently contend that when PW1 has refused
to send her daughter and children, but only on the advice of the
elder persons, agreed to send her daughter, however, she was
also accompanied with them. The factual matrix clearly discloses
that the accused not only quarreled with the victim, but he
followed the victim with a deadly weapon of chopper and in the
presence of PW1, inflicted the injury and PW1 is an eye witness
to the incident. There was no any such provocation at the time of
the incident, except the quarrel. The Addl. SPP brought to the
notice of this Court that the accused not only inflicted the injury
on the victim, but also when PW1 tried to rescue her daughter,
at that time, he also inflicted the injury on PW1 also, that too
aiming the neck of PW1. The Wound Certificate, which is
produced before the Court clearly discloses that PW1 has also
sustained injuries. Even though the injuries are simple in nature,
the Court has to take note of the vital parts of both the victim as
well as PW1, who had sustained injury to her neck and hence, it
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
is a clear case of an intention to take away the life of the victim
and also an attempt was made to take away the life of PW1. The
same has been considered by the trial Court while appreciating
the evidence to invoke Section 302 as well as Section 307 of IPC.
The Addl. SPP also brought to the notice of this Court the
demeanor of cross examination of PW1 by the defence itself that
this accused is an angry person and always he was angry, but
there was no any such incident of provocation and that too on
the date of bringing the victim and also the children to his house.
On the very day, he inflicted the injuries with deadly weapon
knowingfully well that it will lead to a death of a person, if such
injuries are inflicted with the deadly weapon of chopper.
11. The Addl. SPP also brought to the notice of the Court
that PW10 and PW15 have treated both the injured immediately
and also spoken about the nature of injuries and Ex.P35-PM
report issued by PW18, who conducted the postmortem, has also
given the opinion in terms of Ex.P39 that the weapon could
cause such injuries and opinion is also against the accused. The
Addl. SPP would also submit that even weapon was also seized at
the instance of the accused and PW3 deposes with regard to the
recovery of chopper and though PW6 turned hostile, he is only a
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
hearsay witness that he came to know about the incident over
the phone. PW5 supported the case of prosecution but only
turned hostile and treating him as hostile also, the answer is
elicited from the mouth of PW5 by the learned Public Prosecutor
and this witness is also only in respect of the seizure of the
cloths of the deceased and also the inquest. The evidence of PW5
is also not material in arriving to the conclusion that the accused
has committed the murder.
12. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant
and also the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent/State and also
analysing both the oral and documentary evidence available on
record and also in keeping the grounds urged in the appeal
memo and oral submissions, the points that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
i) Whether the trial Court committed an error in
convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of
IPC, believing the evidence of PW1-eye
witness and other prosecution witnesses, and
whether it requires interference of this Court?
ii) Whether the appellant has made out a case to
bring the case within the purview of
Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC to reduce
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
the conviction and sentence and whether it
requires interference?
iii) What order?
13. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant
and also the counsel appearing for the State and also the
respective submissions, we have meticulously considered both
oral and documentary evidence available on record as to whether
it is a case for acquittal or for reducing the sentence, to bring the
case within the purview of Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC as
contented by the counsel appearing for the appellant. Whether
the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for
the offence of Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.
14. Having considered the material available on record,
this Court already considered the case of prosecution in sum and
substance and narrated the same above that the accused was
suspecting the fidelity of his wife and no doubt, the marriage had
taken place 7 years ago and also PW1 has narrated under what
circumstances, this alliance was made that the accused came to
the said village for painting work and one of the elder of the
village suggested for marriage and hence, the same was
considered and performed the marriage. It is also not in dispute
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
that in the said wedlock, there were three children to both the
accused and the victim. It is also the case of the prosecution that
due to the suspicion of the character of the victim, inspite of the
advise of the well-wishers, the accused continued the same
treatment to the victim and hence, she went and stayed back
along with her children in the house of PW1. It is also important
to note that on the date of the incident only, the accused went
and brought the children and also the victim and there was a
festival in the village. But the case of PW1 is very clear that she
did not agree, but on the advice of the elders of the village, she
agreed to send her daughter and grandchildren, however, she
also accompanied with the victim. It is also important to note
that it is the evidence of PW1 that all of them have had the
dinner and thereafter slept in the house. PW1 and her
grandchildren were sleeping outside the house and heard the
screaming sound inside the room, where the victim and accused
were sleeping and her daughter came out from the house, at
that time, the accused followed her with the deadly weapon of
chopper and in front of PW1, the accused inflicted the injuries,
that too on the vital parts. It is also the evidence of PW1 that
when she noticed the same, she tried to rescue the daughter, at
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
that time, the accused inflicted the injury on PW1 also and she
has sustained the injuries. It is also important to note that
having heard the screaming sound, other neighbours also rushed
to the spot and noticed that the accused ran away from the
place, having noticed all people are gathered near the house. All
the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution except PW6 and PW5 partly turned hostile.
15. PW6, who is also a hearsay witness, deposed before
the Court that he came to know about the incident over the
phone and PW5 though turned hostile in part, but his evidence is
very clear with regard to the seizure of the cloth of the deceased
and also the inquest. PW5 is not a material witness with regard
to the incident is concerned. But the evidence of PW1 and PW7
that they have witnessed the incident, has to take note of. No
doubt, the counsel appearing for the appellant brought to the
notice of this Court the admission given by PW7, who is none
other than the daughter of the victim and the accused. No doubt,
she was aged about 7 years at the time of recording her
statement under Section 164(6) of Cr.P.C. before the learned
Magistrate, but she has also given clear admission that on the
say of PW1, she has deposed before the Court. When such
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
answer is elicited from the mouth of PW7, her evidence cannot
be considered as consistent evidence, but in view of the
admission, it is very clear that she is a tutored witness. It is also
trite law that in a case of minor children evidence, who comes
and deposes before the Court, if the Court comes to the
conclusion that their evidence is consistent, then the Court can
rely upon. If the evidence is not consistent and if any admission
is given that she was tutored, then the evidence of the child
witness cannot be relied upon. This Court would like to reply
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gul Singh
Vs. State of MP6 that testimony of a child witness cannot be
rejected unless found unreliable and tutored. It is also held that
on a careful scrutiny, the testimony of a child witness is found
truthful, there can be no obstacle in the way of accepting the
same and recording conviction of the accused on the basis of his
testimony as held in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Ganpathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu7, so also in
K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of AP8. However, the Court has
to take note of the evidence of PW1, who had witnessed the
6
2015 (88) ACC 358 (SC)
7
(2018) 5 SCC 549
8
AIR 2012 SC 2955
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
incident and apart from that she is an injured witness having
sustained injuries on account of injuries inflicted by the accused.
The Wound Certificate-Ex.P28 is very clear that PW1 has suffered
simple injuries and nature of injuries also to be taken note that
there were three injuries, particularly, the one who inflicted the
injury on her i.e. incised wound over the right side of neck
measuring 4 x 1 cm and hence, the Court has to take note of this
document and the very intention of the accused in inflicting the
injury not only on the victim and also inflicting the injury on
PW1, who is an eye witness. There is nothing before the Court to
disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and no doubt, the material
available before the Court points out the very role of the accused
in inflicting the injury to the victim as well as PW1 and nothing is
elicited from the mouth of these witnesses and even defence not
disputed the very incident. If the testimony of an eye-witness is
otherwise found trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be
disbelieved and rejected merely because certain insignificant,
normal or natural contradictions have appeared into his
testimony. If the consistencies, contradictions, exaggerations,
embellishments and discrepancies in the testimony are only
normal and not material in nature, then the testimony of an eye
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
witness has to be accepted and acted upon. Distinctions between
normal discrepancies and material discrepancies are that while
normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s
case and the same is discussed in the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of
Bihar9, so also in the case of Dimple Gupta (Minor) Vs. Rajiv
Gupta10. While cross examining the witness PW1, suggestions
were made to PW1 that the accused is very angry person and
always he will be angry and that line of cross examination shows
that the incident is not disputed, but only an attempt was made
to bring the case within the purview of Exceptions to Section 300
of IPC. But having considered the evidence of PW18-doctor, who
conducted the PM and his report is very clear that there were 19
injuries and also the weapon was sent to the doctor and the
doctor has given the opinion in terms of Ex.P39. In the cross
examination of PW18, only suggestions were made and those
suggestions were categorically denied by the doctor. Having
taken note of the medical evidence and also 19 injuries, that too
9
2008 (61) ACC 972 (SC)
10
AIR 2008 SC 239
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
more injuries are chop wound injuries inflicted on the wife by the
accused and the same is witnessed by PW1, there is a direct
evidence against the accused. Apart from that, PW1 has also
sustained the injuries and the very same weapon was used for
inflicting the injury to PW1. The doctor also opined that injury
Nos.16 to 19 are defence injuries on the victim, that means, the
victim made an attempt to escape from the blow given by the
accused, that too to ward off the injuries, which were aimed on
the neck of the victim and all these materials suggest that with
an intention to take away the life, the accused inflicted the
several injuries on the victim. The trial Court has also taken note
of the evidence of PW1, who had sustained the injuries. Though
the injuries are simple in nature, but he had aimed to inflict the
injury on the neck of PW1 and that injury also measuring 4×1 cm
over the neck, i.e. injury No.2 in Wound Certificate-Ex.P28 and
hence, we do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in
appreciating the evidence. This Court would like to refer the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Vs. State
of MP11 wherein it is held that when an injured witness is
examined, the deposition of an injured witness should be relied
11
AIR 2019 SC 264
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies
for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established
in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during
the said incident. Similar view was also taken in the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Krishnan12. The larger Bench of the Apex Court was also taken
note of the said fact into consideration in the case of Mukesh
Vs. State for NCT of Delhi & Others13. The Apex Court in the
judgment of Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of
Maharashtra14 also reiterated the same. These judgments of
the Apex Court are also applicable in the facts of the present
case, since the evidence of PW1 is consistent and she has also
sustained injuries and her presence on the scene stands
established and the same is proved that she has suffered
injuries. There are no materials to reject her evidence and there
are no any major contradictions and discrepancies in the
evidence of PW1 and hence, we answer Point No.I as ‘negative’.
12
AIR 2017 SC 3125
13
AIR 2017 SC 2161 (Three-Judge Bench)
14
(2016) 10 SCC 537
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
Point No.II:
16. Now with regard to the very contention of the
counsel appearing for the appellant that there was no any
intention for the accused to take away of the life of the victim
and it was a case of grave provocation and also relied upon the
judgments of the Apex Court. This Court has also taken note of
the principles laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court,
which have been relied upon and so also the judgment of the
Delhi High Court. No doubt, Delhi High Court in Paragraph-41
has taken note of the circumstances under which the incident
had taken place and so also in the judgment of the Apex Court in
a case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar supra, has taken note of the
factual aspects in Paragraph-7 and also the ingredients of
Section 300 of IPC in Paragraph-8 and also taken note of the
judgment of the Apex Court in a case of K.M. Nanavati supra,
wherein paragraph-12, the Apex Court comes to the conclusion
that the second part emphasizes that the offender’s reaction to
the provocation is to be judged on the basis of whether the
provocation was sufficient to bring about a loss of self-control in
the fact situation and so also the discussion was made that the
Court has to take note of the gravity of provocation and turns
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
upon the whole of the victim’s abusive behavior towards the
accused. Gravity does not hinge upon a single or last act of
provocation deemed sufficient by itself to trigger the punitive
action and hence, comes to the conclusion that it is a case which
comes under Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC and modified the
judgment invoking Section 302 to Part I of Section 304 of IPC.
So also the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Valson
referred above by the counsel appearing for the appellant and
also taken note of the discussions made in Paragraphs-4 and 5.
17. Having considered the principles laid down in the said
judgments referred by the counsel appearing for the appellant
and also the submissions of appellant’s counsel and also the
Addl.SPP for the State, this Court has to examine whether it
comes within the purview of Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC.
But in the case on hand, it has to be noted that the victim was
staying along with her children at her mother’s house and on the
date of the incident only, the accused went and brought her to
his house. It is also important to note that all of them had the
dinner in the night and thereafter all of them were sleeping. But
at around 10 o’clock, PW1 heard the screaming sound of her
daughter and when she came out, the accused followed her with
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
a deadly weapon of chopper and inflicted injuries on her head,
neck and hand and the same is witnessed by PW1. The Court
also to take note of the fact that the injuries sustained by the
victim that is chop wound injuries, total 19 in number and it is
not a single blow to say that it was not having any intention to
take away the life of the victim and mercilessly inflicted the
same. Apart from that, the evidence of the doctor is very clear
that injury Nos.16 to 19 are the defence injuries. Hence, it is
very clear that the victim also made an attempt to ward off the
very intention and also inflicting the injuries all over the body,
when the accused inflicted the injury with the deadly weapon.
When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel for
the appellant that it is a case for invoking Exceptions to Section
300 of I.P.C. cannot be accepted and also the contention that
this Court can bring the same within the purview of Exceptions to
Section 300 of IPC cannot be accepted. It is also important to
note that the accused had not only taken the victim to his house
on the particular date, but also started quarrelling with his wife
and it is not the case of the defence that the victim started
abusing the accused that too in intolerable words. But the
accused followed her when she came out from the room when
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
the accused started quarrel and inflicted the injury and this Court
also taken note of several injuries inflicted on the victim. If it is a
case of sudden provocation, he would have inflicted single injury
and if it is a case of single blow, then arguments of the counsel
for the appellant would have been accepted, but here is a case of
series of injuries inflicted with the deadly weapon i.e., 19 injuries
and almost all are the chop wound injuries and that the other
injuries are sustained when the victim herself tried to escape
from the blow of the accused and these injuries also on the vital
part i.e. neck and head. The principles laid down in the
judgments referred by the counsel appearing for the appellant
will not come to the aid of the appellant, having taken note of
the nature of injuries and number of injuries and also the
circumstances under which the incident was taken place and also
to take note of the fact that both the victim and also the accused
were not in cordial terms and the victim having not tolerated the
harassment, went and stayed back in the house of PW-1 and on
the particular day, that too when PW-1 did not agree to send her
along with the accused, but only heeding to the advice of the
well-wishers, she sent her along with children, however, she also
accompanied the daughter and grandchildren. When all such
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
materials disclose before the Court, which is not controverted
and not a case for bringing the case within the purview of
Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC. No doubt, the counsel
appearing for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court
that the demeanor of cross-examination of PW-1, during the
cross, wherein they elicited the nature of behaviour of the
accused and also counsel brought to notice of this Court that he
was always angry and the same cannot be a ground to come to a
conclusion that he had lost his self-control and no such
circumstances warranted in the case on hand to lose his self-
control, which has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the judgments referred supra. Here it is not a case of losing of
self-control and there was no such occasion to the accused to
lose his self-control. But the accused himself quarreled with the
victim, who is sleeping along with him and he started the quarrel
and when she came out from the house, he followed her with
deadly weapon and inflicted the injuries. Hence, it is not a case
to bring the case within purview of Exceptions to Section 300 of
IPC and hence, we answered point No.II as ‘negative’.
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
18. In view of the above discussions, we proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
ii. The impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the trial Court is
confirmed.
iii. The trial Judge had directed the children of the
deceased to approach the District Legal Services
Authority (DLSA), but the fact that all these
children are minors and the trial Judge ought not
to have directed the minor children to approach
the DLSA instead of directing the DLSA to invoke
Section 357(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code
to award the appropriate compensation. Hence,
we direct the DLSA, Dharwad to consider the
case under Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C., if it is not
considered and award appropriate compensation
to the children of the victim.
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4619-DB
CRL.A No. 100496 of 2023
HC-KAR
iv. It is made clear that all the children are minors
and hence, the DLSA having awarded the
appropriate compensation to the children, shall
keep the amount in Fixed Deposit in the name of
the minor children till they attain the age of
majority.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGESD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGEJTR/RKM
CT:PA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
