- 1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1930 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1. KUMAR

S/O ESHWARAPPA

DRIVER

R/O AMATEKOPPA VILALGE

SHIKARIPURA TALUK

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY SHIKARIPURA RURAL POLICE

SHIKARIPURA

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.11.2017 PASSED BY THE I II

- 2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN

S.C.NO.68/2016 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED F OR

THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201

OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

also the counsel appearing for the respondent/State-Addl.

SPP.

2. This appeal is filed against the conviction for

the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and

sentenced the accused for life imprisonment and also pay

fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of

IPC and undergo sentence for a period of 3 years and also

pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in respect of Section 201 of IPC and

- 3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

default sentence also imposed for both the offences and

the same is challenged before this Court.

3.

The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that

on 01.05.2015 at about 5:50 a.m., the complainant a nd

one Rudrappa have noticed the body of the deceased lying

on the edge of the road near Kanivemane Village bri dge;

on going-over they found that it was the body of th e

person known to them from a resident of Amatekoppa

Village; deceased had sustained injuries on left ear and on

right side of the head, blood was oozing from nose;

abrasion was noticed on the fingers and knee; then they

have informed the incident to the brother/accused through

phone; but they could not reach out to the accused since

his mobile was not reachable at that moment, then t hey

informed the wife of C.W.4, the accused came to the spot

on receiving the information. On enquiry, the accused told

that in the early morning at about 4:30 a.m., the

deceased left home for morning walk as usual and he

suspected in between 5:30 a.m. to 06:00 a.m., unkno wn

- 4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

vehicle might have caused the accident resulted in his

death. Based on this, the case was registered on the very

same day at 8:00 a.m., invoked the offence punishab le

under Section 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134(A an d B),

187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter

referred as IMV Act). Immediately after receiving t he

information, the complainant Police have visited the spot

and conducted the mahazar in the presence of

complainant and punch witnesses H.B.Puttappa and

Shivamurthappa; then the body was shifted to Mc.Gan n

Hospital by Canter which was brought by the accused ; the

inquest and postmortem was conducted at the hospita l.

The Police have investigated the matter and subsequ ently

when the complaint was given by P.W.8 that it was a

mysterious death and not a case of accidental one;

maternal uncle of the deceased had lodged the compl aint

alleging that 2 days prior to the incident, accused visited

their house when he was along with C.W.23 Nemyanaik a,

he had confessed before him stating that on the greed of

- 5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

money to get the insurance proceeds which was in th e

name of deceased to a tune of Rs,45,00,000/- he

committed the murder and represented it as a case o f

accident to the public, based on this complaint, Police have

registered the case invoking Section 302 and 201 of IPC

and investigated the matter and apprehended the acc used

on 19.12.2015 and during the course of investigatio n,

recorded the statement of owner of the Canter vehic le

which was used by the accused to commit murder and the

same was seized and recorded the statement of the

officers of the Insurance company, wife of the accused and

C.W.26-Hanumantha the daily wages labour who was

working in the house of the accused. The maternal u ncle

C.W.2 has stated that since the birth of deceased, he was

brought up in his care and custody in their house and 1½

years back, the accused took the deceased to his ho use;

hence, by suspecting the hand of accused in the dea th of

deceased made representation to the Police through

investigation. The Police after the investigation filed the

- 6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

charge sheet invoking Section 302 and 201 of IPC an d

filed the charge sheet and case was also committed to the

Sessions Court since the offence is triable by the Sessions

Court and accused did not plead guilty and claims trial and

hence, prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W. 1 to

P.W.22 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.45 and MO.1 and portion o f

statement of C.W.23 is marked as Ex.D.1. The Trial Court

recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of

Cr.PC. Having considered both oral and documentary

evidence available on record and on appreciation of both

oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court answ ered

the charges levelled against the accused as affirmative in

coming to the conclusion that the accused only comm itted

the murder of the victim using the Canter vehicle w hich

belongs to the P.W.5 and also convicted the accused for

screening of the evidence by invoking Section 201 of IPC,

the same is challenged before this Court by the accused.

4. The counsel appearing for the appellant would

vehemently contend that the Trial Court not appreci ated

- 7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

the evidence available on record in a proper perspective.

There is a delay in lodging the complaint and reaching of

FIR to the jurisdiction Magistrate also not been explained.

The counsel would vehemently contend that incident was

taken place on 01.05.2015 and case for invoking of

Section 302 of IPC only in the month of December that too

based on the statement of P.W.8 who is an uncle of the

accused having ill-will against him that he claimed the

share over the insurance amount and he refused to s hare

the amount and hence, a false complaint was lodged. The

counsel would vehemently contend that except motive

that only with an intention to take the money from

insurance company, a murder was committed, nothing is

placed on record, except confession statement of th e

appellant, no other incriminating material or circumstances

proved by the prosecution independently. The trial Judge

committed serious error in convicting the appellant when

the chain of circumstances is broken. The incomplete chain

of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution does not

- 8 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

proves the guilt of the accused in any way. The Doc tor

who conducted the postmortem examination and in the

presence of panch witnesses and cause of death of t he

deceased is very clear that it is due to traffic accident and

hence, question of invoking offence under Section 302 of

IPC does not arise and it is not a case of homicidal and

committed an error relying upon the evidence of

prosecution witnesses solely particularly based on the

evidence of P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.12 and Doctor evidenc e

P.W.15 not corroborates with the evidence of P.W.8.

Hence, it requires interference.

5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the

respondent/State-Addl. SPP -Rashmi Jadhav would

vehemently contend that weapon was seized and seize d

weapon was also sent to the FSL, but no material wi th

regard to the report from the FSL. The counsel woul d

vehemently contend that P.W.8 evidence is very clear that

when he was sitting along with P.W.9, accused came and

made extra judicial confession and the evidence of P.W.8

- 9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

and P.W.9 is very clear with regard to he made the

confession in the presence of both of them, nothing is

elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9. The

counsel appearing for the State/respondent also rel ies

upon the evidence of P.W.5 who is owner of the Cant er

vehicle and he categorically deposed that in the previous

day of the incident, the vehicle was taken from him and

also the P.W.12 who is working in the house of accu sed

categorically deposes that the deceased was not hav ing

the habit of making morning walk and the said evidence is

also not disturbed in the cross-examination. Having

considered all these materials available on record and the

fact that deceased was in the house of the accused on the

previous day is also taken note of by the Trial Court and

Trial Court has minutely taken note of evidence available

on record and hence, not a case for acquittal the accused.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and also the learned counsel for the

respondent/State-HCGP and also considering the mate rial

- 10 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

available on record, we have perused the same and p oint

that would arise for the consideration of us are:

1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in

convicting the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 and Section 201

of IPC in coming to the conclusion that

prosecution has proved the case against the

accused beyond reasonable doubt?

2)

What order?

Point No.1:

7. We have perused both oral and documentary

evidence available on record. The prosecution mainly relies

upon oral evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 who deposes

before the Court that accused came and made

extrajudicial confession and also prosecution mainly relies

upon the evidence of P.W.12 who is the employee of the

accused and also P.W.5 who is the owner of the vehi cle

Canter.

8. Now, this Court has to reconsider the evidence

of P.W.8 and he categorically deposes before the Co urt

- 11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

that the deceased Umesh was a handicapped and he wa s

unable to walk and this accused came and took him on the

guise that he had to obtain the Voter ID card and Aadhaar

card and in April 2015, Umesh also came to the marr iage,

on that date, Umesh came and told that he will not return

to the house of the accused since he is subjecting him for

harassment. But, he came to know that on 01.05.2015 ,

he came to know that Umesh passed away in road

accident and the same was also informed by the accu sed

at 8:30 a.m. It is also his evidence that accused abruptly

and suddenly cremated the dead body by burning the

same and normally they do the same by burial, but h e

intentionally does the cremation by burning the same. It is

also his evidence that he enquired with the accused

whether he had taken any insurance in the name of t he

deceased, but he denied. But, subsequently came to know

that policies are taken in the name of the deceased to the

tune of Rs.45,00,000/- and also he made the claim f rom

the Insurance company. This witness was cross exami ned

- 12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

and answer is elicited that the father of the deceased left

his mother and his sister also got married another person

and also the deceased studied upto 9

th

standard and he

only provided the education to him and having docum ent

and he was not having any Voter ID or Aadhar card p rior

to taking him to his house. However, in the cross-

examination he admits that there was a ID card in 2 010

and the same pertains to the address of accused No. 1.

When the suggestion was made that policy was taken in

the year 2012, he says he was not aware of the same. It is

suggested that burning is the only mode of rituals in their

community and the same was denied. But, he says tha t

Insurance company people came and enquired about th e

policy, then he came to know about the same that in that

Insurance policy, the accused was the nominee. It i s

suggested that he was having ill-will that accused will get

the insurance amount and hence, he lodged the false

complaint and said suggestion was denied. P.W.8 say s

- 13 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

that the accused made extrajudicial confession with him

when the P.W.9 was along with him.

9. The other witness is P.W.9, who is also a

witness to extrajudicial confession and he categori cally

says that when he was sitting along with P.W.8, accused

came and told that he committed the murder of decea sed

Umesh by using the rod, but he did not ask why he

committed the murder, but he says that they did not

enquire the same. Hence, this witness was turned ho stile

and cross examined and in the cross-examination

suggestion was made to the witness by the Public

Prosecutor that in order to get the insurance amoun t, he

committed the murder and the same was admitted and

the said statement was made by the accused infront of

them. In the cross-examination, he admits that before the

arrival of the accused they did not discuss anything about

the Insurance policy. It is also suggested to him that the

witness P.W.8 has not given any statement before th e

Superintendent of Police and the said portion of th e

- 14 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

statement was recorded as Ex.D.1, but he categorica lly

says that accused left after revealing the same within half

an hour, but they did not made any attempt to hand over

the accused to the Police.

10. The other witnesses are P.W.10 and P.W.11

who are the Village Accountant and they have depose d

before the Court that accused made the statement that he

is going to show the place of incident and also washing of

Canter vehicle which was used for committing the mu rder.

In the cross-examination of these two witnesses als o

nothing is elicited from the mouth of witnesses to

disbelieve the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.11.

11. The P.W.12 is the employee of the house of the

accused, who categorically deposes before the Court that

the deceased was not having any habit of making mor ning

walk and also says that he was unable to walk prope rly,

but he says that he found the accused in the house at

5:30 a.m., but this witness was treated as hostile and

suggestion was made that the accused took the decea sed

- 15 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

and he made the statement in terms of Ex.P.24 and t he

same is denied. However, he admits that he himself

belongs to the village of the wife of the accused a nd

suggestion was made that he is falsely deposing and the

same is denied. Having considered this evidence, th e

counsel for accused did not cross examine this witn ess

even not denied that the deceased was not making an y

walking in the early morning and also with regard to the

deceased was unable to walk properly and the said

evidence of P.W.12 remains.

12. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.5, who is

the owner of the Canter vehicle and he categoricall y

deposes before the Court that sometimes the accused

used to take his Canter vehicle since he was knowing the

driving and also knows the deceased and in the prev ious

day he only took the vehicle when he had expressed that

he was unable to go for hire of the Canter and thereafter,

he had handed over the Canter to him and one month

prior to arresting the accused, accused called him and

- 16 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

asked where is he and when he informed that he is in the

house, he called him to road side and he instructed him

that if Police comes and makes any enquiry with him , he

should inform the Police that both of them went to

Ranebennur in order to bring sheep dung, accordingl y he

made the statement before the Police. But, in the cross-

examination he says that he was demanding the renta l

charges repeatedly and on the very same day when th e

accused instructed him, Police came and enquired him and

Police visited his house twice in between the gap o f 25

days. It is suggested that he was having ill-will against the

accused and the same was denied. However, he claims

that in order to get release of the vehicle, he had spent

the money and even not made any suggestion that

accused did not instruct him as he deposed.

13. The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of

P.W.7 General Insurance company employee and so als o

the evidence of P.W.13 – Manjunath, the Branch Mana ger

of Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited and so also

- 17 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

P.W.14 - Sadanandha, Branch Manager of H.D.F.C and

P.W.16 - RavirajA.N, Manager of Corporation Bank fo r

having open the account in the name of the deceased. The

prosecution relies upon these witnesses linking the role of

the accused. Having considered all these materials on

record, no dispute that on 01.05.2015, Umesh died a nd

also no dispute that at the first instance, it was pretended

that it was a case of accident and offences under Section

207 and 304A and other allied offences of Motor Veh icles

Act were also invoked. But, the P.W.8 has suspected the

role of the accused in committing the murder and he nce,

he had lodged the complaint and Police also investigated

the matter.

14. It is important to note that P.W.12 who is an

employee of the house of the accused, he categorica lly

deposed that the deceased was not having the habit of

making morning walk and even he was unable to walk

properly and though he did not support the case of

prosecution with regard to the presence of the accused is

- 18 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

concerned, he deposed that accused was in his house. But,

in the cross-examination of P.W.12, even defence did not

disputes the fact that the deceased was not having the

habit of mourning walk. It is also important to note that

original documentary evidence discloses that he was

suffering from 75% of disability and he is an handicap and

the same is also spoken by P.W.8 who is the uncle of both

the deceased and accused. The documentary evidence

which clearly reveals considering the material on record

that though a policy was taken in the year 2012 for an

amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in the name of the decease d

and the same was paid only one installment and thereafter

it was not paid. But, the records reveals that on

01.01.2015 all the balance amount was paid and got

renewed the policy.

15. It is also important to note that immediately

after renewing of earlier policy on 06.01.2025, the bank

account was also opened and taken one more policy for an

amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and again account was open ed

- 19 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

in the Corporation Bank and policy of Rs.5,00,000/- was

taken in total for sum of Rs.45,00,000/- and all this was

done in the month of first week of January i.e., renewal

and taking of two policies and witnesses P.W.7, P.W .13,

P.W.14 and P.W.16-Bank managers and officials of th e

Insurance company deposed the same for having taken

the policies. It is also important to note that though these

policies were taken, but murder was committed on

01.05.2015.

16.

The evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 is very clear

that when the Police suspected the role of the accu sed,

accused came and confessed extrajudicial confession in

the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.9. The P.W.9 also

categorically deposes that accused came and confess ed

when he was sitting along with P.W.8 and though the se

two witnesses are cross examined, particularly P.W.8 that

he was having an ill-will with regard to the accused did not

share the amount of the insurance policy, but false

complaint was lodged, except this suggestion nothin g is

- 20 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

elicited with regard to the prior enmity between the P.W.8

and the accused since the P.W.8 is none other than the

maternal uncle of deceased as well as the accused. When

such being the case, only question was put to him w ith

regard to the enmity since he did not agree to share the

amount of the insurance policy. But, the fact is that it was

pre-determined and all this was done in the month o f

January-2015 renewing of policy and taking of other two

policies within a span of 6 days and committing the

murder on 01.05.2025 and immediately after lapse of 4

months, when the case was registered for the road traffic

accident, immediately the accused made the claim fr om

the Insurance company since his name was mentioned as

nominee.

17.

It is also important to note that the P.W.12

categorically deposes before the Court that deceased was

grazing the cattle and he is not an educated person and

also P.W.8 categorically deposes that he studied only upto

9

th

Standard and also the policy was taken to the tune of

- 21 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

Rs.20,00,000/- each in case of death of a person when he

was grazing the cow, that too in the house of accused, no

one would invest such huge amount for the insurance

policy and apart from that it is not the case of the accused

that he had also taken the policy for his life, but only he

had taken the policy for his handicapped brother and apart

from that evidence of P.W.5 is very clear that in t he

previous date of the incident, he took the vehicle from the

P.W.5 and also the very evidence is that when the P olice

came to know about that it is a mysterious death and not

an accidental death and about to enquire P.W.5, the

accused went and instructed P.W.5 to inform that he

himself and the accused went to Ranebennur, accordi ngly

P.W.5 made the statement before the Police because on

the very same day, the Police came and enquired him and

this evidence of P.W.5 is also not rebutted in the cross

examination of P.W.5. All these materials were taken note

of by the Trial Court while considering the evidence. All

these circumstances, chain of events supports the case of

- 22 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

prosecution and that has been discussed from paragr aph

No.48 with regard to the motive and extrajudicial

confession and also the conduct of the accused prior and

subsequent to the incident and detailed discussion was

made with regard to the lodging of complaint and prior to

that registration of the case under Section 279, 304A of

IPC in paragraph No.48 and lodging of complaint by P.W.8

on 18.12.2015 in paragraph No.19 and also taking of

policy on different dates in the month of January a nd

renewing of policy was also discussed in paragraph No.50

of the judgment of the Trial Court and even taken note of

when the policy was lapsed and the same was renewed on

01.01.2015 and apart from that the date of issuance of

policy was also taken note of in paragraph No.51 and it is

a cold blooded murder by the accused in order to claim the

insured amount of deceased and motive for committin g

the murder was also taken note of in paragraph Nos. 51

and 52 and particularly the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.12

was also discussed in paragraph No.53 and also Ex.P .7 is

- 23 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

the certificate issued by the concerned authority stating

that deceased had a permanent disability of 75% on his

lower limb and the same supports the evidence of P.W.18

that he was unable to walk properly and also the evidence

of P.W.12 is very clear that the deceased was not having

the habit of morning walk. All these circumstances were

taken note of by the Trial Court and when such deta iled

order was passed by the Trial Court in coming to th e

conclusion that prosecution has proved the motive t o

commit the murder of the deceased that with an intention

to obtain a large sum of insurance proceeds which

obtained in the name of accused, he had patched up a

plan to murder his own brother who is an handicappe d

person and evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 who speaks

about the extrajudicial confession was discussed in

paragraph No.58. When such material was taken note of

by the Trial Court and taken the pain in appreciating of

evidence of the chain of circumstances in committing the

murder, we do not find any error on the part of the Trial

- 24 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

Court in convicting the accused considering each an d

every circumstances.

18. The counsel appearing for the appellant would

vehemently contend that even Section 201 of IPC can not

be attracted, but the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.11 is

very clear that immediately after causing an accident and

committing the murder, accused washed the Canter

vehicle and also P.W.10 and P.W.11 specifically dep osed

that accused only made the voluntary statement that he

would point out the place of incident and where he had

washed the Canter vehicle and the same was spoken b y

both the Village Accountant before the Court. Hence, it is

nothing but screening of the evidence available in the

place of incident as well as washing the blood stains on the

vehicle and also the P.W.5 evidence is very clear that in

the previous day of the incident, vehicle was taken from

him and used the same and also he pretended that he is

not aware of the same and when the complainant noti ced

the body was found on the road, he tried to reach out the

- 25 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

accused, but he could not reach the accused and hence, it

was informed to C.W.4 and the conduct of the accuse d

also to be taken note of and he himself shifted the body of

the deceased in the very same Canter vehicle and all these

factors are taken note of and Section 201 of IPC invoked

against the accused since he made all his efforts to screen

the evidence of committing of the offence and hence , we

do not find any error on the part of invoking Section 201

of IPC convicting the accused since he made all his efforts

to screen the evidence.

19. Having perused the proviso of Section 201 of

IPC, it is very clear with regard to causing disappearance

of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen

the offender that includes the main offender also not it is

by any third person causing disappearance of evidence of

offence or giving false information to screen the offender

and the said contention cannot be accepted and hence, no

force in the submission of the counsel appearing for the

- 26 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:951-DB

CRL.A No. 1930 of 2017

appellant and hence, the said argument cannot be

accepted. Hence, we answer the point No.1 as negative.

Point No.2:

20. In view of the discussions made above, we pass

the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T)

JUDGE

RHS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22