- 1 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 9

TH

DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

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

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100233 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

RAVI S/O. KANAKAPPA PATROT,

AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,

R/O. SIDDAPUR, NOW TOLAMATTI ROAD,

SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL FARMHOUSE,

TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE, PIN-587116.

- APPELLANT

(BY SRI. S.P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH BILAGI POLICE STATION,

BILAGI TALUK, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,

R/BY. THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

- RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P.)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF

CR.P.C. (SECTION 415(2) OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.10.2024 PASSED BY THE

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN

SESSIONS CASE NO. 12/2023 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED

OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

ON 07.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGM ENT

THIS DAY, JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

- 2 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

CAV JUDGMENT

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

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C. No. 12/2023 for

the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC questioning the

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- and prayed

this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.

2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is tha t the

accused and deceased Chandrappa were known to each other,

the husband of PW3, i.e. deceased was addicted to consumption

of alcohol, he used to consume alcohol everyday. The deceased

did not turn up to house on 08.12.2022 but he left the house

stating that he is going near Bilagi cross and when he did not

turn up, PW3 and children went to sleep. But on 09. 12.2022 at

about 08.00 a.m. PW11 made a phone call that a body is lying in

Modi plot at Bilgi cross and asked her to come to the said place,

she went to the place and identified that the said body is of her

husband, she lodged the complaint stating that her husband was

murdered by someone else. Hence case is registered and

investigation is conducted. The accused was arrested and after

the completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed;

- 3 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

after filing of the charge sheet case was registered as C.C. No.

7/2023; thereafter the matter was committed to the Sessions

Court and the same is numbered as S.C. No. 12/2023; the

accused was secured, he did not plead guilty and claims the trial,

hence prosecution relies upon the evidence PWs 1 to 13, got

marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.40 so also MOs 01 to 11.

3. The charges levelled against the accused is that on

08.02.2022 at 11.30 p.m. in the open space of prope rty bearing

No. 319/1 belonging to one Sivaganga situated at Ba dagandi

Village, when deceased Chandrappa insisted the accused to offer

him liquor, the accused getting enraged by it, assaulted him with

a big sized stone on his head and committed the mur der. The

trial judge having considered the evidence of PWs1 to 13 and

documentary evidence, since the accused also denied

incriminating evidence under Section 313 of CrPC, a ppreciated

both the case of prosecution and also the defence and comes to

the conclusion that accused only committed the murd er of the

deceased and convicted him and sentenced for the of fence

referred above. Aggrieved by the judgment of convic tion and

sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

- 4 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

4. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the

appellant-accused is that the case is rested upon circumstantial

evidence. He further contended that the trial judge committed an

error in not considering the material contradiction s and

discrepancies in the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses

and the punishment imposed on the appellant is on h igher side.

The trial judge committed an error in relying upon the

circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution and finding

is erroneous which led to the miscarriage of justice. The counsel

in his arguments submits that when the case is rest ed upon

circumstantial evidence, only evidence relied upon by the

prosecution is last seen theory and blood stains on the cloth of

the accused were recovered at the instance of the accused. The

counsel would submit that trial Court relied upon the evidence of

PW8 and PW9 and the evidence of PW3, wife of the de ceased is

nothing but an improvement in her evidence.

5. The counsel also would submit that the trial Cou rt

committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW4 so also

the evidence of PW5, the evidence of the Doctor PW7 and relied

upon the wound certificate of the accused which is marked as

Ex.P.22. The counsel would submit that the blood gr oup is ‘AB’

- 5 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

group, but no evidence is placed before the Court w hether it

belongs to the deceased or the accused; further there is no any

motive to commit the murder and only motive attribu ted by the

prosecution is that the deceased insisted to offer liquor and the

same cannot be a motive. The counsel would further submit that

PW11 first found the dead body and prosecution main ly relied

upon the document Exhibit P40 FSL report so also the voluntary

statement of accused at Exhibit P28. But the same c annot be

relied upon. The counsel also submits that the trial Judge has

committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW3, PW4,

PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW13 and the material available o n record

is not sufficient. The counsel also admits that there was a long

gap of last seen witness as well as body was found on the next

day. When the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the same

and the same is not proved, it is not a case for invoking Section

302 IPC and the trial court ought to have taken note that there

was no any intention to commit the murder and there was no

any previous ill will and without prejudice, the counsel would

submit that the trial Court ought to have invoked Section 304 of

IPC.

- 6 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State Additional

State Public Prosecutor would submit that the evide nce of last

seen witnesses, PW8 and PW9 is very clear and both of them had

seen the accused and deceased in the late night at around 11.00

p.m. The counsel would submit that evidence of the Doctor-PW7

is very clear as to the time since death, Postmortem report which

is marked as PW17 is very clear that time since death is 12 to 24

hours. The counsel would submit that postmortem was

conducted on the next day at 02.00 p.m. and the sam e

corresponds to the timings of the last seen theory of the

prosecution is that in the late night both accused and deceased

were together. The counsel also would submit that P W3 and

accused both were loitering having consumed the alc ohol. The

counsel would submit that recovery is also proved by examining

PW4 and his evidence is consistent regarding recovery i.e. T-shirt

and pant and Exhibit P10 is the mahazar for recover y. The

counsel also would submit that the evidence of PW7- Doctor is

very clear that it is a case of homicide. The accus ed in his

evidence did not deny the incriminating circumstances that both

of them were together in the previous night; and when the blood

- 7 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

stains were found in the shirt of the accused, he ought to have

given explanation, but he was very silent.

7. The counsel also observed that the accused also had

sustained injuries and to that effect also there is no any

explanation and Exhibit P22 wound certificate is also clear. The

accused was arrested on 10.12.2022. All the circums tances

clearly point out the role of the accused in commit ting the

murder. Hence, the trial judge rightly appreciated both oral and

documentary evidence.

8. In reply to this argument, the counsel for the a ppellant

would submit that the body was found on the next day and there

was no motive, none of the witnesses speak about th e

involvement of this accused and unless chain of circumstances is

proved, question of convicting the accused does not arise and

hence it requires interference of this Court.

9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appel lant as

well as the counsel appearing for the State, the points that arise

consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the trial judge committed an error in

convicting the accused for the offence punishable

- 8 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

under Section 302 of IPC believing the circumstantial

evidence and whether it requires interference of this

Court?

(2) What order?

10. The case of prosecution is that on 08.12.2022 a t 11.30

p.m., in the open space of property bearing No. 319/1 belonging

to one Sivaganga situated at Vadagandi Village, the accused

enraged on the insistence of the deceased to offer liquor,

committed the murder with a big stone.

11. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of the

Doctor regarding homicidal death is concerned. Post mortem

Report Exhibit P17 clearly discloses that injuries sustained over

head was caused by hard and blunt objects. The Doc tor who

conducted the postmortem also deposed that cause of death is

due to hemorrhagic shock due to injury sustained over the head

by hard and blunt object; and having considered the evidence of

PW7, nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PW7, which

is put in respect of the cause of death. The Doctor also

categorically says that he has furnished the opinion of cause of

death of deceased when the FSL report was sent to h im and he

- 9 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

gave the final opinion; in the cross-examination ex cept the

answer elicited from the mouth of PW7 that if stone like MO1

falls on a person's leg, a fracture likely to occur but he denied

the suggestion that if a person falls on stone like MO1, the

injuries are not likely to occur, the same was denied and there is

no serious dispute regarding the nature of injury and cause of

death. Hence this Court has to accept that it is a case of

homicide.

12. Now this Court has to consider the other evidence available

before the Court. The law was set in motion based o n the

complaint given by PW3 which is marked as Exhibit P 5 wherein

the case of prosecution is narrated that she found the dead body

on the information, and in the complaint it is stated that the

murder might have committed in between 06.30 p.m. a nd in the

early morning before 07.30 as he left the house at 06.30 p.m.

but he did not turn up and specifically stated that someone

committed the murder using the stone. The contents of the

complaint also deposed by PW3 in her evidence and s he

identifies her signature in the complaint-Exhibit P 5. In the

evidence also she says that CW19 and CW20 last seen the

accused and deceased in the previous night and the same was

- 10 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

informed to her; MOs 1 to 4 are also identified by her; photos

were taken in terms of Exhibit P4 at the time of spot mahazar. In

her cross-examination, except eliciting that near the Bilgi cross,

more vehicles will move and there are shops and tea shops in

the said place, nothing is elicited. It is also suggested that if

anybody scream at the spot, the same will be heard by Lamani

Thanda people who were staying in the hut; there we re number

of stones lying at the spot. It is elicited that her husband was

consuming alcohol from last two years. The witness also says

that her husband informed that accused also used to accompany

him. In her cross-examination, suggestion was made that due to

influence of alcohol, deceased fell down on the sto ne and

sustained injuries but nothing is elicited with regard to the last

seen theory which she has spoken in paragraph numbe r 4 of the

chief evidence and even not denied in the cross-examination.

13. Now Court has to take note of the evidence of P W8. In his

evidence PW8 deposes that he knows both the decease d and also

the accused. His evidence is that when he was in the Pan Shop in

the previous night along with CW19, accused and deceased went

towards Sai bar at around 11 o'clock and thereafter accused only

came back and they closed the shop at 12.30 and wen t to their

- 11 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

residence. In the early morning he came to know abo ut the

murder of the deceased, he had informed the same to the Police.

In the cross-examination, he admits that there are other shops

by the side of his shop and also admits that number of people

visit his shop and there are more tea shops in the said cross.

When a suggestion was made that when number of peop le come

to his shop, he cannot identify but witness categorically says that

accused used to come to his shop for purchasing of the Beedi. In

the further cross examination, it is elicited with regard to the

location of the place. He admits that whoever visits the Sai Bar

cannot be seen from him. But his evidence is very clear that both

of them having consumed the alcohol and came to his shop.

Having considered this evidence, it is very clear that he had

found both accused and deceased at 11 o'clock and a ccused

alone came back while returning and nothing is elicited from the

mouth of this witness that he did not notice both of them in the

late night and no serious dispute regarding last seen.

14. The other witness is PW9, he says that there wa s a family

function of marriage and both accused and deceased with the

influence of alcohol came there and started dancing along with

them, at that time CW21 scolded them and sent them out, and

- 12 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

next day he came to know that deceased was murdered . This

fact was informed to the police. This witness was also subjected

to cross examination. In the cross examination, he says that

accused was moving near his house and he had seen e arlier.

When they started dancing with their woman folk, sent him to go

out. In the cross-examination, except suggesting th at both of

them did not come to the place, nothing is elicited. However, this

witness says that both accused and deceased regular ly used to

consume alcohol and moving around. Suggestion was m ade that

on the particular date accused and deceased consume d the

alcohol and hence this suggestion is very clear that accused and

deceased went near their function and not disputed the very

presence of accused and deceased that both of them were there

in the previous night and function was also started after 11 pm.

Having considered the evidence of PW8 and PW9 it is very clear

that both of them had seen the accused and deceased in the

previous night. Hence the prosecution has proved the last seen

theory.

15. The other circumstances relied upon by the pros ecution is

blood stained cloth of the accused were seized. PW4 in his

evidence deposes before the Court that he was calle d by the

- 13 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

Police and motorcycle was seized by drawing the mah azar in

terms of Exhibit P6 and photo was taken in terms of Exhibit P7

and the owner of the vehicle who has been examined as PW10

comes before the Court and deposes that this accuse d was

working with him and using the motorcycle which was seized in

the Police Station at the instance of the accused and the owner

got released the vehicle from the Court. It is also his evidence

that accused pointed out the spot where he committe d the

murder and mahazar was drawn in terms of Exhibit P8 and photo

was taken. At this juncture itself this Court can take note of the

fact that it was not discovery as per the accused and the place of

incident was known to others since body was found i n the very

same place. This evidence cannot be relied upon, ho wever, the

evidence of PW4 is very clear that accused led them and

produced his cloth stating that he was wearing those clothes at

the time of the incident and there were blood stains in the cloth

and in his presence and also CW6 panchanama was dra wn and

T-shirt and pant were seized, and sketch was also prepared, he

identified signature in Exhibit P10 and also the sketch Exhibit P11

so also the photo Exhibit P12. In the cross-examination of this

witness, it is only elicited that he was having an acquaintance

- 14 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

with Bilagi Town Police. But suggestion was made that he was a

stock witness and the same was denied. Except the g eneral

denial that accused did not lead them to spot and also produced

any cloth, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. The

evidence of PW4 is consistent with regard to the re covery of

cloth of the accused.

16. It is also important to note that the prosecuti on mainly

relies upon Exhibit P10 seizure of the cloth and so also relies

upon the FSL report marked as Exhibit P20. It is very clear that

Article Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were stained with

human blood ‘AB” group. The FSL report is also very clear that

the cloth which was seized at the instance of the accused were

also stained with very same blood and including the clothes of

the deceased, and accused also has not given any ex planation

either in statement u/S 313 CrPC and also not led any evidence.

The accused ought to have given explanation when th e material

goes against him with regard to the seizure of his cloth and the

same contains the blood of the ‘AB’ group. Hence th e other

circumstances involving the accused in the crime su bstantiate

the case of the prosecution.

- 15 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

17. The third circumstance is the accused also had sustained

injuries and he was taken to the hospital after his arrest, is also

not in dispute and document Exhibit P22, wound cert ificate

belongs to the accused. Having perused document Exh ibit P22, it

is clear that accused had sustained the injuries on the dorsum of

left foot and this accused was taken to the hospital on the day of

arrest on 10.12.2022 at 08.45 p.m. and injury was s imple in

nature and the same might be caused due to part com ing in

contact with hard and rough surface object. With regard to the

injury is concerned also there is no any explanation on the part

of the accused. The evidence of the Doctor is also very clear with

regard to the nature of injury sustained by the acc used. The

nature of injury sustained by the accused is also proved by the

prosecution and no explanation on the part of the accused.

18. The evidence of Investigating Officer is also very clear with

regard to the recording or statement of PWs 8 and 9 immediately

after the incident with regard to the last seen evidence and also

the blood stained clothes were seized at the instan ce of the

accused. In the cross examination of Investigating Officer

nothing is elicited to disbelieve the same. Apart f rom that,

independent evidence of PW4 is also very clear regarding seizure

- 16 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

of the cloth at the instance of the accused and seizure of the

cloth is also nothing but a discovery at the instan ce of the

accused and no one had seen the same and he took th e panch

witness also the Investigating Officer and produced the same

which was hidden by him.

19. No doubt the prosecution case is with regard to the motive

is concerned that the deceased insisted the accused to offer

liquor and by enraged by the same, the accused comm itted the

murder by using the stone. No doubt there was no a ny pre-ill-

will between them. It is also important to note that record clearly

discloses that both of them were addicted to the alcohol and the

same was spoken by PW3 that deceased was addicted f rom last

two years. The evidence of the witnesses is also very clear that

on the previous day night both of them consumed the alcohol

that is spoken by PW9. They noticed that both of th em started

dancing with family members and they were sent out.

20. Furthermore, in the case of circumstantial evidence, motive

is significant and even if it is significant also the Court cannot

brush aside the evidence available on record. The t rial judge,

having taken note of the evidence available on reco rd,

- 17 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

particularly the legal position regarding circumstantial evidence,

considered the Judgment of Apex Court in 1989 Supp (2) SCC

706 (Padala Veera Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh) and

took note that when the case is rested upon the circumstantial

evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is

sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly est ablished,

and those circumstances should be of a definite ten dency,

unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accuse d, and

circumstances should be taken cumulatively, should form a chain

so complete that there is no escape from the conclu sion that

within all human probability the crime was committe d by the

accused and none else, and in order to sustain conviction, chain

link must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other

hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.

21. In the case on hand also there was no any expla nation on

the part of the accused with regard to the incrimin ating

circumstances pointed out during the recording of statement u/S

313 CrPC. The trial judge also took note of the factual aspect of

motive is that motive is not an essential ingredient of an offence,

and the question of motive need not be considered w hen the

evidence is clear that particular accused was the assailant and

- 18 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

therefore there is no burden of proof on the prosecution based

on the existence of any motive, relying upon the Ju dgment in

1972 Cri.L.J. 1668 (Surajpal Singh Vs. State of Mad hya

Pradesh) considering the Apex Court Judgment and further

considering the Apex Court Judgment of AIR 1963 ORI. 33

(State Vs. Durga Charan Bank) , took note that motive is only

indispensable for conviction of the accused and when the facts

are clear and the same is immaterial.

22. The trial judge also took note of last seen theory, relying

upon the judgment of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram

(2006) 12 SCC 254 , and came to the conclusion that the same

is also an additional link of last seen theory, and considered the

evidence of PW8 and PW9. The trial judge also took note of

voluntary statement of the accused as per Exhibit P 28 and in

terms of the voluntary statement, accused led the Investigating

Officer and also the panch witness to the place whe re he

committed the murder and also the clothes were prod uced which

were blood stained worn by him at the time of the i ncident.

Exhibit P10 is the mahazar to that effect. The evidence of PW4 is

consistent regarding seizure is concerned and he has supported

the case of the prosecution and nothing is elicited. The spot

- 19 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

which was shown by the accused is not admissible ex cept

recovery of stained cloth. The learned trial Judge taken note of

the FSL report which reveals that the clothes of the accused were

also stained with the very same blood group. So al so with

regard to the place of occurrence is concerned, no dispute by the

defence and only suggestion was made to the witness that

deceased fell down on the stone, sustained injuries and

succumbed to the injuries. Apart from that even med ical

evidence is also taken note of and during course of cross

examination by the defence itself suggested that the same is not

the lonely place and the same is busy place.

23. All these circumstances point out only the accu sed only

committed the murder. When reasoning was given by t he trial

Court considering the prosecution evidence, we do not find any

grounds to come to a other conclusion that accused has not

committed the murder. The trial judge in detail considered the

material on record both oral evidence as well as th e

documentary evidence, which point out the role of the accused in

committing the murder. Hence the trial Judge has not committed

any error in convicting the accused and sentencing and the

grounds which have been urged during the course of argument

- 20 -

CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025

by the counsel appearing to the appellant, we do no t find any

force in the submission. Hence it is not a case for interference by

this Court. Accordingly, we answer the point No. 1 in the

negative.

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

following Order.

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed. Judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the trial Court is confirmed.

SD/-

(H.P.SANDESH)

JUDGE

SD/-

(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

JUDGE

bvv

CT-PA