1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23

RD

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.69/2018

BETWEEN:

1 . RUDRESH @ RUDRAIAH

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

S/O SANGAIAH HIREMUTT

R/AT MOOLEGADDE MUTT

VILLAGE HOSAMANE

HOSANAGARA TALUK

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF

RAVALGUNDAVADI, JATHRA

SANGLI, MAHARASTRA. … APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY HOSANAGARA POLICE,

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU – 560009. … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP)

R

2

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)

OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORD ER

OF CONVICTION DATED 27.11.2017 AND SENTENCE DATED

30.11.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR IN

S.C.NO.10018/2017 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED

FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 12.01.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT

PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

AND

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CAV JUDGMENT

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

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 27.11.2017 passed in

S.C.No.10018/2017 on the file of the V Additional D istrict and

Session Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Sagar for the of fences

punishable Sections 364 and 302 of IPC.

2.

The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that the

complainant is the resident of Alavalli of Sirsi, Siddapura. It is

the case of prosecution that in the year 2011, the complainant

got married to one Kumarswamy of Basaveshwara Nagar of

3

Haveri district and her husband is working as a mechanica l

engineer in one company at Pune. They had a son by n ame

Srujaya aged about 3½ years. They are following Mool egadde

Mutt and she is visiting there whenever she comes to her native

place. The complainant had come to her native for the marriage

of her sister. On 08.04.2017 she had been to the said Mutt with

her mother-Renuka and son-Srujaya in order to attend the

coronation ceremony of new Swamiji. It is also the case of

persecution that other relatives of the complainant wer e also

there in the Mutt. This accused was serving in the said Mutt and

assisting the Swamiji and there was an ill-will between the

complainant and accused since the complainant and her mot her

used to advise him with regard to the affairs of the said Mutt.

3.

That on 10.04.2017, during the night, they took food

and slept in the Mutt by locking the doors. The son was sleeping

with her. On 11.04.2017, at about 05.30 a.m., one Rajaiah woke

her up and said that child was not found and hence, the y

immediately searched for the child and found that doors of Mutt

were opened. Herself and her grandmother-Gowramma and

4

relatives i.e., Mahadevamma, Ashwini and others have se arched

for the child but not found. The complainant learnt that someone

had kidnapped her son when they were sleeping. It is a lso the

case of prosecution that accused came from outside when they

were searching and on enquiry, he has not given any an swer

thus, the complainant suspected the role of the accused that he

might have kidnapped her son. It is also the case of the

prosecution that there was some change in the health of the

complainant and others on the next day who took food last

night. Hence, lodged the complaint against the accused.

4.

Based on the complaint, the police have conducted

investigation and apprehended the accused and body of the child

was recovered at the instance of the accused and recorded t he

statement of the witnesses and filed the charge sheet aga inst

the accused. The copies of the charge sheet papers were

supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

and the Judge who received the charge sheet, committed the

case to the Sessions Court. The accused was secured and

5

cognizance was taken and the accused did not plead guilty and

claims for trial.

5.

The prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined

PW1 to PW21 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P57

and MO1 to MO4 were also got marked. The accused was

subjected to 313 statement and he denied the incriminat ing

evidence and he did not choose to give any defence evidence.

6.

The Trial Court having considered both oral and

documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that prosecuti on

has proved the case against the accused in respect of the

charges levelled against him under Section 364 as well as

Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonmen t for

life i.e., he has to remain in prison until his natural death and he

shall pay fine of Rs.15,000/-. In default to pay the fine, he shall

further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Out of the

fine of amount, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW1. MO1 to MO3

are ordered to be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period

is over.

6

7.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

sentence, the present an appeal is filed before this Court.

8.

The main contention of the counsel appearing to the

appellant before this Court is that the Trial Court committed an

error in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused e ven

though, the prosecution utterly fails to prove the case beyond all

reasonable doubt. The counsel also would vehemently cont end

that there is no eye-witness to the incident and the entire case is

based upon the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has

utterly failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. The counsel

contend that when the case is rested upon the circumstanti al

evidence, there must be a chain link to prove the guil t. The

counsel also would vehemently contend that the witnesses a re

interested witnesses and official witnesses and no corroboration

in testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The answer eli cited

from the mouth of PW1 i.e., the mother of the victim that she

had not seen that accused had killed her son but she came to

know that PW3 had seen that the accused had administer ed the

sleeping tablets into the sambar. But PW3 has deposed that she

7

came to know that the accused had administered sleeping t ablet

to the child and killed him by drowning in the water.

9.

The counsel further contends that PW9 is the owner of

Karthik Medical Store and he deposed that the accused had

purchased the sleeping tablets from his medical shop. But in the

cross examination, he deposed that he does not know the

contents of Ex.P33 and accused came to his shop once and he

does not remember when accused again came to his shop. Th e

counsel also would vehemently contend that PW14 - Dr.

Lingaraju in his cross-examination admits that he does n ot

remember whether accused has taken sleeping tablets from him

and on verification of hospital records also there is no any

document to show that accused has taken treatment from h im

on 01.10.2016 to 31.12.2016 and 01.01.2017 to 10.04 .2017

and he also deposed that he does not remember whether

accused has taken sleeping tablets from him or not. The

evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1, PW4, PW9 and

PW14 not inspires the confidence of the Court and no chain link

circumstances are proved. The counsel also would vehementl y

8

contend that the ingredients of Section 364 of IPC are not

proved and even in respect of offence of Section 302 a lso, no

material before the Court.

10.

The learned counsel during the course of his

arguments would vehemently contend that PW15 is the Hea d of

the Mutt and this accused was serving with him. PW1 and P W2

are the devotees of the said Mutt. The counsel would vehemently

contend that the case of the prosecution is that accused ha d

administered the tablet to the child but no material is available

on record in this regard. It is also the case of the prosecution

that accused had used 17 tablets putting the same in the sambar

which was prepared in the Mutt. In this regard, the cou nsel

brought to notice of this Court that the case is rest upo n

circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance is with regard to

the motive of committing murder. The second circumstance i s

preparation for committing the murder. The third circumstance is

recovery of body and tablets. The other circumstances reli ed

upon is medical evidence and finally the scientific evidence. The

counsel would vehemently contend that in order to prov e the

9

motive, the prosecution examined the main witnesses i.e., PW1

and PW2 who are the mother and grandmother of the ch ild. The

PW4 is also none other than the relative of PW1 and P W2. The

other witnesses are PW5, PW11 and PW15 and their evide nce is

not sufficient to prove the motive.

11.

The counsel would vehemently contend that the

prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of witnesses with

regard to the preparation to commit the murder where in

particularly, relied upon document at Ex.P31 i.e., sle eping

tablets of 0.5 mg which was used to commit the murder. The

prosecution mainly relies upon evidence of PW3 and PW21 for

recovery of the body at the instance of the accused and their

evidence also not inspires the confidence of the Court sin ce

according to the prosecution, accused was arrested at 03.15

p.m., but evidence of these witnesses was taken even prio r to

the said time. The counsel would vehemently contend tha t the

prosecution also relies upon medical evidence to prove of the

case examining the doctor as PW14. The doctor's evidence i s

with regard to the consumption of tablet and drowning . For

10

scientific evidence, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of

PW18 and PW19 and the counsel would vehemently contend that

according to the scientific evidence, found the tablet contents in

sambar and also in the child. But in respect of others who have

consumed the sambar, not found the contents of the table t and

report is negative. The counsel also would vehemently co ntend

that in respect of the first charge, there is no evidence except

PW1 and no material for administration of the tablet.

12.

The counsel would vehemently contend that with

regard to the motive is concerned there was a double ed ged

sword and mainly relies upon the evidence of PW5 and P W12.

The counsel would vehemently contend that MO1 is child' s T-

shirt and MO2 is child's pant. The counsel would vehemen tly

contend that PW1 though supported the case of prosecution , in

the cross-examination admitted that she used to visit the Mutt

frequently before and after marriage. PW1 categorically admitted

that she had sound sleep after the dinner and denied personally

witnessing the accused killing her child and confirmed th at

others have witnessed the mixing of the medicine to the sambar.

11

13.

PW2 who is the mother of PW1 and she speaks with

regard to Ex.P2 to P5 photographs of the deceased child and also

the seizure of MO1 and MO2. She only speaks that she cam e to

know that sleeping pills were mixed in food and accused took the

child to kill. In the cross examination, she admitted that she

studied upto 10

th

Standard and also admitted that accused was

taking care of PW15 and denied that accused behaved rud ely

and misused the funds.

14.

PW3 is a panch witness to Ex.P18. He is also a

devotee of the said Mutt. He says that he was called to the police

station on 11.04.2017 at 03.00 p.m., with regard to drowning of

a child. In police station, the accused was present and confessed

mixing of sleeping tablets and also confessed for giving sleeping

tablets to the child and later drowning him. The confession was

video recorded and photo was taken and he accompanied t he

police and accused to the river pit near the Mutt and identified

the location and photos. He saw there that the child's body was

floated and lifted the child's body to the bank and identified the

child's photographs i.e., Ex.P14 and P15 and the child 's body

12

was floating in water and Ex.P16 and P17 are the pho tos of

water sample collected and Ex.P18 is the spot mahazar. In the

cross-examination, he admits that he was visiting the Mutt from

last 10 years and knows everyone. He admits that he was at

Subash Nagar before being called to the police station and went

to the police station around 3.10 p.m., and thereafter started to

go to the incident spot from the police station at 03.30 p.m., and

he confirmed that he had signed the document after it was

written in his presence.

15.

The PW4 also says that she frequently visiting the

Mutt and devotee of the said Mutt and deposed that she used to

advise the accused not to steal money and mobile phones a nd

deposed that due to the said advice, the accused develope d

hatredness against the visitors. It is her evidence that on

10.04.2017, at 7.00 p.m., she saw that the accused stirri ng

something into the sambar and when she questioned, he sa id

that he was heating the same. In the said night when a ll were

slept under the stairs, her son and the accused were sleeping in

the first floor. On the next day morning, she was drow sy and

13

was taken to the hospital along with others. Later, she learnt

that sleeping pills were put in the food and in the child's water

and then drowned the child. In the cross-examination, she

admits that accused served the elders for some days, but later,

started to steal some items. It is her evidence that they went to

the hospital between 08.00 to 09.00 a.m., but admitted that she

did not see the accused adding pills but realised it, after eating.

16.

The other witness is PW5 who is also another devotee

of the said Mutt. She also attended the coronation cere mony

along with the family members and also identifies the accused

before the Court stating that he was serving at the Mutt. That on

10.04.2017 at about 10.00 p.m., herself and her gran dmother

and others had dinner served by the accused and that nig ht,

they slept near the steps and the child slept between them. On

the next day morning, the child was missing and they we re

admitted to hospital and came to know that tablets were mixed

in the sambar and everyone in the previous night were drowsy

and came to know about the incident of killing of the child. In

the cross-examination, she admits that it was her second visit to

14

the Mutt. The accused had a broken shoulder. But she sa ys that

7 to 8 people were admitted to the hospital and she d oes not

know about others and she cannot tell whether police ha ve

visited the hospital or not. But she confirms that dinner was at

about 10.00 p.m. and deposed that she came to know thr ough

Madevamma that accused added sleeping pills to the samba r.

But she did not give any statement at police station but gave at

the hospital. It is elicited that she did not witness the killing of

the child but heard the same from others.

17.

The other witness is PW6 who deposed that accused

was serving at Mutt and came to know that accused had p ut

sleeping pills in the sambar and powder in the milk of the child,

fed it to the child and later took the child and killed him. He was

called by police. He saw that the accused explaining how he took

the child and he identified the photograph at Ex.P18 . The

accused took them from the police station to the Mutt an d

accused identified the child and also even pointed out the spot

where the child was slept and Mahazar was drawn in term s of

Ex.P18 to P20. This witness is a mahazar witness. In a cro ss

15

examination, he admits that he was called for the ma hazar but

not received any prior notice. He described the topogra phy of

the river, road, trees and the vacant land in the cro ss-

examination and he admitted that he went along with police but

did not know the number of the vehicle.

18.

PW7 is also a Panch witness to Ex.P22-Mahazar and

Ex.P23 to P28 photographs. He deposed that he was called to

the police station and found other panch witnesses and accused

narrated with regard to his Act and police took them to the attic

where the accused showed a suitcase containing 3 sheets of

tablets out of that one was empty and another was with 2

tablets and another sheet was with full tablets. The police seized

the tablets and conducted the mahazar in terms of Ex.P2 2. He

identifies the seized medicine sheets as MO3. He was subjected

to cross-examination wherein he admitted that he arri ved the

police station around 09.45 a.m., but did not persona lly

interrogate the accused. They left for the Mutt at 10.00 a.m.,

and took about half an hour to collect the medicines an d he

16

cannot clearly explain the contents of the mahazar and did not

mark to the medicine to identify the same.

19.

PW8 is also a Panch witness to Ex.P29 and P30. He

found that the police and accused were present in the me dical

shop. The accused told to the police that he had purchased the

sleeping tablets from the said medical store and shopkeeper also

confirmed the same. The police conducted the mahazar in terms

of Ex.P30 and photograph also taken as per Ex.P29. In the

cross-examination, he admits that he did not know the name of

the medical store and the person who took the photographs. But

he deposed that police were questioning the accused and b oth

the accused and the shopkeeper stated that the sleeping p ills

were purchased and he admits that he did not know anyt hing

further apart from signing the mahazar.

20.

PW9 is owner of the Karthik medical store and he

deposed that the accused was frequently purchasing medicine

and accused also residing at Moolegadde Mutt. He deposed t hat

police visited to his shop on 13.04.2017 along with accused and

he confirmed that he gave the Clonazepam 0.5 mg tabl ets based

17

on a doctor's prescription. 30 tablets were given to the accused

on 20.03.2017 and copy of the receipt of the same was m arked

as Ex.P31. Those tablets were sleeping tablets and police have

conducted the mahazar and took the photographs in term s of

Ex.P30 and Ex.P32 is the photograph of receipt registe r and

document of ownership of the medical store was marked a s

Ex.P33 and P34 and MO3 medicine sheet of Clonazepam t ablets

was identified. In the cross-examination, he admits that he did

not instruct the police how to write the mahazar. The medicines

were given only with a doctor's prescription specifically, from

Dr.Lingaraju, a Government Doctor. He did not know th e name

of the photographer who took the photo as per Ex.P29 and could

not recall names in the bill book.

21.

The PW10 is a Panch witness to the inquest at Ex.P35.

22.

PW11 is a relative of Priest of Moolegadde Mutt and

the accused is the grandson of Siddalingaswami's sister. He also

deposed that accused served the Guru at the Mutt but his nature

was bad and used to stealing devotees' belongings and mo ney

and he was also advised many times, but he continued the

18

misconduct. During preparations for the ceremony, in April 2017,

the accused broken his hand in a bike accident and he asked for

money and got angry when he was scolded. On the night of

10.04.2017, food was cooked separately for Swamijis and others

and given details with regard to the incident. He was subjected

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

he slept between 09.00 p.m., or 09.30 p.m. He explain ed that

leftover food from Swamiji's portion was consumed by hi m and

Rajanna. He denies the suggestion that someone else commi tted

the crime.

23.

PW12 is the another witness of the prosecution

wherein he deposed that he works as a cook for gatherin gs and

events. He was called to the said Mutt in the month of A pril

during the coronation ceremony. He knew the accused who

served the Swamijis at the Mutt. Rajanna cooked for th e

Swamijis and he cooked for the devotees. He cooked rice and

sambar at the Mutt and the accused was moving around in the

kitchen. After finishing cooking, he returned to his home without

knowing that who served the food. On the next day m orning, he

19

came to know about the incident of missing of a child and mixing

of sleeping tablets into the sambar. This witness was subjected

to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admi ts not

knowing which hand of the accused was injured. He expla ined

that preparation of food for Swamiji and devotees we re

separate. The sambar vessel was about 10 litres and reduce d to

4-5 litres by evening and stirring it with two hands was

unnecessary. The next morning, the vessel still contained

leftover sambar.

24.

P.W.13, is a devotee of the Mutt and visits regularly.

On 11.04.2017, he learnt that a child was missing. He we nt to

the Mutt and helped to search, but could not find the child. It is

his evidence that child's mother had lodged the complaint, which

he wrote as dictated by her and he identifies his signature as

Ex.P.1(b). It is also his evidence that C.W.1 and C.W.5 to C.W.8

felt dizzy after eating rice and sambar the previous night. He

brought the leftover rice and sambar from the Mutt and gave it

to doctor and identified his signature as Ex.P.36(a). It is his

evidence that the accused has mixed sleeping pills in the food in

20

the previous night and also gave sleeping pills to the child and

drowned in the river. He was subjected to cross-examination. In

the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that C.W.1 did

not sign the complaint and the same was denied. He says th at

people were admitted to the hospital due to drowsiness and a

suggestion was made that he is falsely deposing and the sa me

was denied.

25.

P.W.14 Medical Officer says that several patients were

admitted with dizziness and nausea. The patient Shanka raiah

informed him that sleeping pills were added to rice and sambar.

He also speaks about Ex.P.36 and says food was sent for

chemical analysis through the police in terms of Ex.P.37. He

conducted the post mortem on the child Sujay and sent internal

organs for chemical analysis. The final report received confirmed

Clonozepam in multiple organs, concluding that the chil d died

due to Clonozepam poisoning and asphyxia from drownin g. He

examined the tablets, used for insomnia and anxiety a nd

confirmed their contents. He was subjected to cross-

examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that p oison

21

suspicion led to chemical testing. Food was brought by relatives

and confirmed details of post mortem including absence of

blood, presence of froth and indigested food. He denied that a

single 0.5 mg tablet could kill a child, but affirmed that death

was due to drowning after poisoning.

26.

P.W.15 head of the Mutt says that the accused is his

sister's daughter's son and he was serving at the Mutt. The

accused had a bad reputation for stealing money and belongings

from devotees and the Mutt. Despite being advised, he

continued his misdeeds and harbored hatred towards some

devotees, especially C.W.1 and C.W.4, after being reprimanded.

On 10.04.2017, separate food was prepared and the same was

eaten by devotees, since separate arrangement was made f or

the devotees as well as him. The next morning C.W.1's so n was

missing and several devotees were dizzy. The child's body was

later found in the stream and he was informed that the accused

had poisoned and thrown the child. He identifies the dead body

photos, stream photos and other related photos, identifying the

accused’s involvement out of hatred. He was subjected to cross-

22

examination. In the cross-examination, he admitted tha t he

treated the accused affectionately and gave him money. Others

were afraid to report the accused’s theft. He admitted hearing

about the accused’s wrongdoing from others, but denied making

false claims. He clarified that the accused was advised not to

work after breaking his hand, but continued serving. He admits

that he came to know about the bad habits of the accuse d from

others.

27.

P.W.16 PDO says that Mutt comes within her Gram

Panchayath jurisdiction and she issued the demand extra ct of

the Mutt Ex.P.39.

28.

P.W.17 Assistant Engineer says that he inspected the

site behind Moola Gadde Mutt in Hosamane, which was show ed

by the police and he prepared the sketch as per Ex.P.40.

29.

P.W.18 is the Scientific Officer, FSL. He says that he

examined 12 items sent by Hosanagara Police in connection with

Crime No.36/2017 for chemical analysis. Items included

stomach, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, heart of deceased Sujay,

blood samples, preservative solution, sambar and Clonoza pam

23

tablets. He found traces of Clonazepam in item Nos.1, 3, 6 and

12. No traces in item Nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 to 11 due to

metabolism/time lapse. Explained persistence of Clonazepam in

deceased’s body due to stopped excretion/blood circulation. He

was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examinatio n,

he admits that item Nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 to 11, had no

Clonozepam. It is suggested that he is giving false evidence and

the same was denied.

30.

P.W.19 doctor who is working as Deputy Director, FSL,

submits that she received the water bottle samples relate d to

Hosanagara P.S. on 17.04.2017. Samples from Toxicology

Department (stomach, lungs, liver, kidney, heart and blood)

were sent to Biology Department. It is also her evidence that she

examined them for diatoms. Found presence of diatoms in four

items. Explained diatoms enter body when a person fall s in

water and drinks water; if unconscious before falling or water

lacks diatoms, none are found. This witness was cross-examined

and she says that diatoms were not present in the water sample

itself. It is stated that if diatoms are in water and v isceral

24

organs, death can be attributed to drowning. She denied giving

false report at the police request.

31.

The other witness is P.W.20 ASI. In his evidence he

says that he was in charge on 11.04.2017 at 10.00 a.m. and he

received a written complaint and registered the case and sent

the FIR to the Court and superiors and identified signature in

Exs.P.1 and 45 complaint and FIR. He was subjected to cross -

examination. He admits that he did not verbally orde r staff to

trace the accused.

32.

P.W.21 is the CPI. He says that he received the case

file from ASI on 11.04.2017. He interrogated the accused, who

confessed to abducting Sujay, administering sleeping p ills and

throwing him into the stream. It is also his evidence that the

accused led police and panchas to the stream, identified the

body, demonstrated where he threw the child. He also sa ys that

he conducted panchanamas, collected evidence including wa ter,

tablets, clothes, blood samples and prepared sketches and

reports. He obtained voluntary statement and recorded witness

statements and submitted the charge sheet. In the cross-

25

examination, when a suggestion was made that he is fal sely

deposing and the same was denied. A suggestion was made that

he did not conduct panchanama or prepared any rough ske tches

and recording of evidence and the same was denied. He re -

affirmed that all procedures were lawful and the accuse d’s

involvement was properly documented.

33.

The learned counsel for the appellant referring the

evidence of these witnesses would vehemently contend that the

material collected by the Investigating Officer not points out the

role of the accused and the evidence of the witnesses not

inspires the confidence of the Court that accused only committed

the murder. Though witnesses speak about motive and

preparation to commit offence by purchasing of tablets a nd

kidnapping by the accused, the recovery of the dead body of the

child, not inspires the confidence of the Court. The le arned

counsel would vehemently contend that the timings of a rrest of

the accused and the evidence of witnesses are very clear th at

there are contra evidence. The evidence of FSL expert also not

inspires the confidence of the Court to come to a conclusion that

26

this accused had only committed the murder. Though relies upon

the prosecution witnesses, the evidence regarding motive,

preparation, recovery of body, medical evidence and sci entific

evidence not points out the role of the accused.

34.

Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his

argument relied upon the judgments. First and foremost

judgment he relied upon is the judgment of the Apex Court in

PUTAI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC

ONLINE SC 1827. The counsel for the appellant relying upon

this judgment brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.69,

wherein discussion was made that fields where the materia l

objects allegedly belonging to the child victim and her dead body

were found is open and accessible to all and sundry and hence,

the prosecution would have to rule out the possibility of anyone

other than the accused-appellants having committed the ghastly

act for it to succeed and to bring home the charges against the

said accused persons. The counsel also referred paragraph

No.70, wherein also discussion was made that these facts m ay

give rise to a strong suspicion that the child victim might have

27

been assaulted in the field of accused No.1, but that by itself

would not be sufficient to establish that it was the accused No.1

and none else who committed the ghastly crime. The coun sel

referring these two paragraphs would vehemently conten d that

the place where the dead body was recovered is an open space

and anybody can visit and access the same. Hence, the version

of the prosecution cannot be believed.

35.

The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex

Court in SUBRAMANYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in

(2023) 11 SCC 255 . The counsel referring this judgment

brought to notice of this Court reversal of judgment passed by

this Court and would contend that the Apex Court in detail

discussed discovery of weapon of offence, clothes and dead body

in paragraph Nos.69 to 74, particularly the witnesses which have

been relied upon and also discussed Section 27 of the Evidence

Act in paragraph No.76 of the judgment. In paragraph No.77,

the Apex Court also held that first and the basic infirmity in the

evidence of all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is that none

of them have deposed the exact statement said to have been

28

made by the appellant herein which ultimately led t o the

discovery of a fact relevant under Section 27 of the Ev idence

Act. In the absence of such evidence, there cannot be any

conviction. The counsel also would submit that none of th e

witnesses speak about the exact statements said to have be en

made by the accused, which ultimately led to discovery of a fact

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence, Section 27 o f the

Evidence Act cannot be invoked.

36.

The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in VAIBHAV v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in

(2025) 8 SCC 315. The counsel referring this judgment brought

to notice of this Court discussion made by the Apex Cou rt in

paragraph No.18 with regard to circumstantial evidence, wherein

the Apex Court held that in a case based on circumstanti al

evidence, answers to such questions are not found on the face of

the record. Rather, the truth is found concealed in the layers of

incriminating and exonerating facts, and the Court is required to

arrive at a judicial finding on the basis of the best p ossible

inference which could be drawn from a comprehensive anal ysis

29

of the chain of circumstances in a case and also subsequent

conduct of the appellant in trying to show concern to the father

of the deceased despite knowing about the death. The co unsel

would vehemently contend that it is the duty upon the Court to

make comprehensive analysis of the chain of circumstances in a

case of circumstantial evidence. The counsel also brought t o

notice of this Court paragraph No.29, wherein discussion was

made that in criminal jurisprudence, it is a time-teste d

proposition that the primary burden falls upon the shoulders of

the prosecution and it is only if the prosecution succeeds i n

discharging its burden beyond reasonable doubt that the burden

shifts upon the accused to explain the evidence against him or to

present a defence. The counsel referring this judgment would

contend that prosecution was unable to prove its case bey ond

reasonable doubt and if the same is proved, then only the

burden lies on the accused to disprove the same.

37.

The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in KIRAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2025

SCC ONLINE SC 2863 and brought to notice of this Court

30

paragraph No.8, wherein the Apex Court observed that question

remains as to whether the Sessions Court was competent to

award a sentence of imprisonment for life till the remainder of

life and prohibit the benefit of set-off as provided under Section

428 of Cr.P.C. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court

paragraph No.13, wherein it is clearly held that in appropriate

cases as a uniform policy, punishment of imprisonment for life

beyond any remission can be awarded, substituting the d eath

penalty; not only by the Supreme Court but also by t he High

Courts. The power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life

without remission was conferred only on the Constitutio nal

Courts and not on the Sessions Courts. The counsel referring this

judgment would vehemently contend that Apex Court ha s taken

note of imposing of sentence is concerned and in the case o n

hand, the Sessions Court awarded life imprisonment til l the

natural death of appellant and the same is not permissible.

38.

The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in KATTAVELLAI @ DEVAKAR v. STATE OF

TAMILNADU reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1439 . The

31

counsel referring this judgment brought to notice of this Court

paragraph No.25, wherein discussion was made with regar d to

recovery based on confession statement giving information

regarding location of material objects and held that l imited

portion of the confession becomes admissible according to

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and brough t to

notice of this Court detailed discussion made in the said

paragraph referring the several judgments. The counsel also

brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.26, wher ein the

Apex Court observed that let us now consider the circumstances

in which the recovery was made from the locations as disclosed.

It cannot be questioned that such recovery would be rele vant

since the Appellant-convict could have affected the recovery only

if he had specific knowledge of the location. This, however, in

our view, is not sufficient to take the recovery of the objects as a

circumstance against the Appellant-convict. This we say for the

reason that the objects recovered also have to be verified and

tested and his statement is said to have led to the recovery of

weapons. The counsel referring this judgment would vehe mently

32

contend that very recovery of the dead body and discovery is not

proved and the same cannot be believed.

39.

The counsel also brought to notice of this Court

paragraph No.36, wherein discussion was made with regar d to

motive is concerned that in a case of circumstantial evidence,

motive forms one of the chains of circumstances which can

collectively point to the guilt of the accused. The counsel also

brought to notice of this Court that in paragraph No.41, the Apex

Court discussed with regard to non-examination of

Bhagyalakshmi and essential happenings of a link. The counsel

referring this discussion would vehemently contend that in the

present case, all the witnesses have not been examined be fore

the Court as to who have consumed the food in the prev ious

night and only examined some of the witnesses. The counse l

also vehemently contend that FSL report is positive o nly in

respect of the food consumed by the deceased i.e., the sam bar

and in respect of consumption of very same food by othe rs, the

report is negative. The counsel also brought to notice o f this

Court conclusion arrived in the judgment in paragraph No.45,

33

wherein the Apex Court observed that we have no hesit ation in

holding that none of the circumstances posited by the

prosecution are found to be conclusively proved against the

Appellant-convict. The chain of circumstantial evidence in no way

points to a singular hypothesis, that is the guilt of the accused,

ruling out his innocence or involvement of none else in the

crime. Hence, acquitted the accused.

40.

The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in BALJINDER KUMAR ALIAS KALA v. STATE OF

PUNJAB reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1459 . The counsel

referring this judgment would vehemently contend that the Apex

Court in detail discussed the evidence, particularly the evidence

of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to scene of occurrence and ev en

with regard to weapon wielded by the accused is concerned ,

discussion was made that it goes without saying that the murder

weapon becomes a relevant piece of evidence in such cases a nd

analyzed the testimony of P.W.7. The counsel also broug ht to

notice of this Court paragraph Nos.36 and 37 regarding recovery

of blood-stained clothes and weapon and discussion was ma de

34

that only forensic evidence in this case is the report of the

chemical analysis which merely states that the blood foun d on

the exhibits is opined to be of human origin. The same is

evidently not sufficient to link the articles to the deceased or the

specific offence. In the absence of any evidence of prosecution

for recovery while the recovery may not be wholly discarded due

to the lack of a supporting witness, however, it undou btedly

becomes highly questionable, especially with the factum of long

delay of two months in the discovery being effected.

41.

The counsel referring these judgments would

vehemently contend that having considered the material

available on record both oral and documentary evidenc e, the

same not supports the case of prosecution. Hence, the counsel

would contend that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated

both oral and documentary evidence available on record.

42.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

State would submit that the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.3 is very

clear and these two witnesses withstood the cross-examinati on

of the defence counsel. P.W.4 is the relative of P.W.15 and P.W.5

35

is also the relative of P.W.15 and P.W.15 is the Swamiji of the

said Mutt. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is very clear that the

accused was having hatredness on both of them on account of

advice made by them. The learned counsel also vehementl y

contend that medical evidence of P.W.14, scientific evidence of

P.W.18 and P.W.19, the evidence of P.W.20 and P.W.21

corroborates each other with regard to guilt of the accused. The

panch witnesses P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9 al so

supports the case of the prosecution. There are material

evidence before the Court that the accused was having il l-will

against P.W.1 and P.W.2 and due to the said hatredness only he

committed the murder and with regard to the motive i s

concerned, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.11

and P.W.15 is very clear. The learned counsel would con tend

that P.W.15 is the relative and spoken that the accused is his

sister’s daughter’s son and his evidence is also very clear that he

was having bad reputation. The evidence of P.W.9

Virupakshappa, who is the owner of the medical shop,

categorically deposes for having purchased the medicine and he

is a signatory to Ex.P.30. P.W.8 is the panch witness for

36

preparation to commit offence by purchasing of tablets. With

regard to recovery of tablets, panch witness P.W.7 clear ly

deposes that he is a witness to Ex.P.22. But no evidence with

regard to kidnapping of the deceased by the accused, since none

of the witnesses have witnessed the same. But the body wa s

recovered at the instance of the accused and mahazar wit ness

P.W.3 supports Ex.P.18. P.W.21 speaks about the arrest o f the

accused and recovery of the body at the instance of the accused.

The medical evidence of P.W.14 and post mortem report Ex.P.38

is very clear with regard to the cause of death and viscera which

was sent to the lab. FSL witness P.W.18 and P.W.19 also

supports the case of the prosecution and hence, it is not a case

for acquitting the accused and the very contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant that the prosecution fails to prove the

case beyond reasonable doubt cannot be accepted. Hence, it is a

case for confirmation of conviction and sentence also

commensurate considering the conduct of the accused and

rightly sentenced to life imprisonment and he has to remain in

prison until his natural death or otherwise the accused, who is

having hatredness may also bring trouble to this society.

37

43.

The counsel referring the evidence of these witnesses

would vehemently contend that the prosecution, in orde r to

prove the case, particularly with regard to motive is concerned

contend that the evidence of all these witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1, 4,

11 and 15 is very clear that the accused was having hatreadness

towards P.Ws.1 and 4, since they were bringing out the bad

character and version of the accused, particularly to P.W.15. The

counsel also would submit that even the evidence of P.W. 15,

who is the close relative of the accused and also Swamiji of the

said Mutt also goes against the accused with regard to his bad

antecedents that he was indulging in misusing the Mutt a nd

there were complaints against him and he also scolded hi m

about his conduct. The counsel also would vehemently cont end

that preparation of the accused to commit the offence wa s also

proved. The owner of medical shop i.e., P.W.9. categor ically

deposed that he himself supplied the tablets to the accused and

to that effect, bill is also marked as Ex.P31. The counsel also

would submit that P.W.4 categorically deposed that he w as

pounding something and putting the same to sambar and the

same was witnessed and later, came to know that the same is

38

the tablet. Hence, it is clear that he was making preparation with

an intention to take away the life and mixed the ta blet in the

sambar to take away the life of a child, who is aged about 3½

years.

44.

Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State in

support of his other circumstantial evidence would veheme ntly

contend that dead body was found in an isolation place and the

same is not an open space as contented by the learned cou nsel

for the appellant. With regard to recovery of the de ad body,

P.Ws.3 and 6 have spoken about the same and the body w as

recovered at the instance of the accused and prior to that, none

were aware of the same and the same was within the speci al

knowledge of the accused. The accused himself pointed out

where he drowned the body of a boy and the evidence of P.Ws.3

and 6 is very clear that when they were called to the police

station, the accused himself told that if he is taken, he would

show the place where he committed the murder and throw n the

body. He would counsel vehemently contend that PM repo rt is

very clear that death is an account of consumption of tablet and

39

also drowning. The very case of the prosecution is also that the

accused had administered the tablet and committed the mu rder

by drowning and medical evidence of the Doctor is also very

clear.

45.

He would further contend that FSL report is also very

clear that in article Nos.1, 3 and 6, Clonazepam was found i.e.,

in the body of the deceased and also sambar which was sei zed.

The Trial Court also in detail discussed the evidence of P.W.19-

Doctor and so also in paragraph No.63 comes to the conclusi on

that as a result of Clonazepam which was found in the b ody of

the child, child was unconscious and as a result, content of

diatom will not be there in the body. He also relies upon medical

evidence and in reply to the article which was relied upon by the

counsel appearing for the appellant, it is clear that blood sample

was received and sent on 17

th

and there was delay in sending

the same. Hence, in respect of other persons, who have

consumed the sambar, the FSL report is negative. But, the child

viscera was seized on the very same day when the body w as

found. Hence, the report is positive and Exs.P36 to P38 were

40

taken note of by the Trial Court while coming to the conclusion

that accused alone committed the murder.

46.

In reply to this argument, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant would vehemently contend that this Court

cannot invoke Section 27 of the Evidence Act and also it is very

clear that except examining P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, the prose cution

has suppressed the evidence of material witnesses and mater ial

witnesses are not examined before the Trial Court. The very

evidence of P.W.18 is very clear that it was a false evi dence

before the Court. But, P.W.5 says that blood was drawn on the

very same day. But, no material to that effect and though, it was

received by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 17

th

in a proper

manner with seal, the delay in sending the same to the FSL

cannot be a reason for negative report. The counsel ref erring

Ex.P38-PM report would contend that time since the death is also

silent and the same is not mentioned. Learned counsel al so

would vehemently contend by producing the order sheet of the

Trial Court that case was committed on 18.07.2017 and trial had

commenced on 21.08.2017 and the same was completed on

41

15.11.2017 within a span of three months. The judgmen t was

delivered on 27.11.2017. Hence, it is clear that the Trial Court

hurriedly conducted the case and delivered the judgment . The

counsel also vehemently contend that this appellant is in custody

from last 9 years and the Court has to take note of said fact into

consideration.

47.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant in detail and also the principles laid down in the

judgments referred by learned counsel for the appellant and also

having considered the submissions of learned HCGP appeari ng

for the respondent-State, the points that would arise for

consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in

convicting the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC?

(2) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in

sentencing the accused to undergo

imprisonment for life i.e., to remain in prison

until his natural death and whether the same

requires modification?

(3) What order?

42

Point No.(1):

Law set in motion

48.

This Court while considering the charges levelled

against the accused, considered both oral and documentary

evidence available on record to re-appreciate whether the trial

judge committed an error as contended by the appellant ’s

counsel during the course of his argument, in keeping th e

principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and hence

analysis of evidence available on record, the complainant who

has been examined as P.W.1 set the law in motion by lo dging

the complaint in terms of Ex.P.1. This Court has to look into the

contents of the complaint wherein she has stated that her son is

aged about 3½ years and also says that herself and her relatives

came to Mutt and stayed in the Mutt. That on 10.04.20 17,

herself and others took the food and had the deep slee p. It is

also stated that while going to bed, locked all the doors and her

son Sujay was also sleeping by the side of her. On the next day

11.04.2017 at about 05.30 a.m., one Rajaiah made he r to wake

up, stating that child is not there. Having woke up, searched the

child, but not found and door of the Mutt was opened and

43

immediately herself, her grandmother Gowramma, relat ive

Mahadevamma, Ashwini and all have searched, but not f ound

the child. It is alleged in the complaint that someone else

kidnapped the child. At that time, this accused came from

outside and he was enquired about the child, but he did not give

any answer and hence, suspected the role of the accused in the

complaint. It is also stated that her health as well as the others

health were not in order and when the child was not found, gave

the complaint. Based on the complaint at 10 a.m., Police have

registered the case in Crime No.36/2017 for the offen ce

punishable under Section 363 of IPC at the first instance. This

complaint was received by P.W.20 and law is set in moti on by

issuing FIR.

49.

The P.W.20 in his evidence, he says that he had

received the complaint from P.W.1 and immediately reg istered

the case for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC,

issued the FIR and sent the same to the Court and also t o the

higher authority. The complaint is marked as Ex.P.1 a nd

signature is marked as Ex.P.1(a) and FIR is marked as Ex .P.45

44

and his signature is marked as Ex.P.45(a). Thereafter, entrusted

the case file to C.P.I for further investigation. In the cross-

examination, it is elicited that on receipt of the complaint, he

appointed his staff for searching of the child and accused and

sent HC-648 to the crime spot. But, he has not received a ny

information from the Hospital i.e., HMR and while lod ging the

complaint, her relatives are also accompanied. But, he c annot

tell the names. The lodging of complaint process was completed

within 10 minutes, at that time, P.W.1 was all right . She

categorically says that she brought the written complaint.

50.

The other witness is P.W.13. In his evidence, he says

that having come to know that child was missing, he went to

Mutt and he also searched. The P.W.1 is the mother of the child

and he wrote the complaint Ex.P.1 as P.W.1 is narrated and he

identifies his signature in Ex.P.1. In the cross-examinat ion,

suggestion was made that he wrote the complaint and Cha ithra

had signed and the same was denied. But, he says that P .W.1

only narrated, as per her instructions, he wrote the complaint.

Having considered the contents of the complaint is concerne d,

45

the evidence of P.W.13 is very clear that he wrote the complaint

as per the instructions of the complainant and this Court has to

look into the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the l odging of

complaint is concerned and in her evidence, she categorical ly

deposes with regard to the conduct of the accused in terms of

the contents of the complaint and categorically deposes that she

had suspected the role of the accused and also identifie s her

signature in the complaint. Hence, in the complaint itsel f

suspected the role of the accused at the first instance whil e

lodging the complaint at 10 ‘o' clock. The evidence of P.W.13 is

very clear that he wrote the complaint and P.W.20 had

registered the case and set the law in motion and the evidence

of these witnesses corroborates each other to set the law into

motion.

Analysis of evidence for homicidal

51.

It is the case of the prosecution that accused

kidnapped the child and committed the murder. It is th eir case

that Clonazepam was administered to the child and also to the

sambar which was seized.

46

52.

The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of

P.W.14-Doctor. In his evidence, he says that he is working in the

Hosanagara Public Hospital from last 9 years and that on

11.04.2017, Gowramma, Mahadevamma, Ashwini, Shankar aiah

and Chaitra came to hospital and admitted and they to ok the

treatment and one Shankaraiah given the letter in t erms of

Ex.P.36 and seized the sambar when the same is produced and

sent the same to the Police for chemical examination an d

Ex.P.37 is the document to that effect. The other evid ence is

that on 12.04.2017 he conducted post mortem in the ear ly

morning 7:30 a.m., to 8:30 a.m., and also collected the viscera

and the same was sent to chemical examination and reserv ed

the opinion and having received the opinion from the FSL, found

Article 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 Clonazepam and hence, gave the report

that child died due to consumption of Clonazepam medi cine

tablet and also drowning. He gave the P.M report in t erms of

Ex.P.38 and also identifies his signature as Ex.P.38(a). He also

identifies MO.3-tablets and in that tablets Clonazepam is there

and the same is given for insomnia and anxiety and in case of

Fits, the same will be given. This witness was subjected to cross-

47

examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that relatives

of the patients only brought the sambar, but he did not instruct

the same and relatives of the patients only brought them to the

Hospital and also admits that if there was a seriousness of health

used to advise to go to higher hospital. It is elicited that blood

was not found in the mouth of the deceased, but there was a

froth in the mouth of the deceased and also there was a swelling

in the stomach. He admits that he did not mention the timings of

death. In order to digest the food, it requires 4 hou rs. It is

suggested that MO.3 is effective tablets and the same was

denied, but says that by giving 0.5 mg dose, child will not die,

but it is suggested that child was not died on account of

drowning and the same was denied. He categorically says t hat

the child was not died while drowning him and when th e child

was alive, by that time only thrown into the water. However, he

admits that he has not mentioned the same in the repo rt. It is

suggested that whether accused had purchased sleeping table ts

from him, but, he says he does not remember the same. I t is

suggested that he has not given the report and the same is

denied.

48

53.

The counsel appearing for the appellant would

vehemently contend that time since death is not menti oned in

the report and hence, the same cannot be believed. The said

contention cannot be accepted and there was no delay and child

was found on the very next day afternoon and the same will not

go to the very root of the case of the prosecution as contended

by the counsel appearing for the appellant and nothing is elicited

from the mouth of P.W.14 that child is not died on acco unt of

Clonazepam was found and drowning and not disputed th e same

and only suggestion was made that he did not conduct p ost

mortem and also not given any opinion and the same is denied.

54.

Having considered the evidence of the Doctor- P.W.14

who conducted the post mortem and he has not given the

opinion immediately but, he kept pending the opinion and gave

the opinion only on the basis of the chemical examination report

and his report is also based on scientific examination an d

Ex.P.38 P.M report is very clear that cause of death is on account

of the same and hence, it is a case of homicidal.

49

55.

The case is rest upon circumstantial evidence and

Court has to examine whether the chain of events and a lso

whether there is a each link is established by the prosecution to

prove the case of prosecution and if no chain link is established,

then entitled for acquittal and if chain link is established, case for

conviction. The Trial Court accepted the case of prosecution and

convicted and now this Court has to re-examine the mate rial

available on record by analyzing the evidence.

Motive for committing the murder.

56.

The main contention of the prosecution is that the

accused was not having good reputation and though he wa s

working with Swamiji-P.W.15, but he had developed h abit of

snatching the mobile and money and hence, the same was

noticed by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and others including P.W.11 and

P.W.14 and hence, this Court has to take note of the evidence of

witnesses. The P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.11 and P.W.15

speaks about the very conduct of the accused.

57.

The evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the accused

was loitering in the Mutt and spending money and used to

50

snatch the mobile and even committing the theft of the money

of the Swamiji and the disciples of the Mutt were also noticed

the said conduct of the accused and the P.W.1 and P.W.2 used

to scold him and hence, he was having hatreadness against

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and even he got sustained injury to his hand in

the accident and also P.W.2 scolded him why he got injur ed at

the time of coronation, but he used to demand money t o go to

hospital frequently and abused him to leave the Mutt and hence,

he was having hatreadness against her and also her mothe r and

mother returned to her village, but herself, P.W.3, P.W.4 and

P.W.5 were there. The P.W.2 also re-iterated the same and

categorically says that he used to snatch mobile as well a s

money of Swamiji and people are also making complaint against

him and he has advised.

58.

P.W.4 also deposes the relationship between the

Swamiji of Mutt and also the accused. She categorically sa ys

that when they advised him, he used to quarrel with t hem and

even Swamiji also advising him including P.W.1 and P. W.2. He

51

used to quarrel with them also and hence, he was having

hatreadness against them.

59.

P.W.11 also in his evidence, he says that accused was

not having good reputation and he used to snatch the belongings

of the devotees and the Swamiji. Swamiji used to advise him on

several occasions. The P.W.11 also re-iterates that when he had

sustained the injury, he used to demand money from the

Swamiji and hence, both Swamiji, P.W.1 and mother of P.W.1

i.e., P.W.2 have scolded him and hence he was having

hatreadness.

60.

The other witness is P.W.15, who is the head of the

Mutt and Swamiji in his evidence, he says that P.W.1 an d their

family members are devotees of the Mutt and accused is also the

son of his sister's daughter. The P.W.4 Mahadevamma is also

wife of his brother. The P.W.12 is the son of P.W.4 and also he

re-iterates that he used to snatch the belongings of the devotees

and also says that his money was also stolen by him on sev eral

occasions and he advised him and also even instructed hi m to

leave the Mutt, but he has continued in the Mutt stating that he

52

would not repeat the same. It is also his evidence that P.W.1

and P.W.2 have also scolded him not to do like that and hence,

he was having enmity against P.W.1 and her mother-P.W .2.

61.

Having taken note of the evidence of these witnesses,

during the course of cross-examination, nothing is elicited with

regard to the accused had developed the hatreadness ag ainst

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and with regard to the advice is conce rned by

all of them, nothing is elicited. In the cross-examinati on of

P.W.1, a suggestion was made that P.W.1 and her family

members were misusing the funds of the Mutt and the said

suggestion was denied. It is elicited that on that day accused

was sleeping along with Vijaykumar on the first floor and except

eliciting this answer, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1.

The P.W.1 denies the suggestion that Swamiji was looking after

the accused with love and affection and the same was denied. It

is elicited that P.W.1 and her mother looking into the financial

affairs of the Mutt. It is suggested that with regard t o the

financial aspect, there was a Galata between the P.W.1 and her

mother and Swamiji and the same was denied. It is the

53

suggestion that accused was instructing them not to misuse the

funds of Swamiji and hence, both of them were abusing him and

these suggestions are denied.

62.

In the cross examination of P.W.2, it is elicited that

when the mother of the accused passed away, accused was age d

about 14 years and he used to call P.W.2 as Aunt and al so

answer is elicited that she used to give money to the accu sed

and these are the admissions elicited from P.W.2, but nothing is

elicited with regard to developing of hatreadness. It is suggested

that they were misusing the funds of the Mutt and the same

came to know the knowledge of the accused and hence,

deposing falsely and the said suggestion is denied and nothing is

elicited with regard to accused was questioning the financial acts

of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

63.

The P.W.4 was also subjected to cross examination. In

the cross examination, nothing is elicited with regard to the

evidence of P.W.4 that he was quarreling with P.W.1, P.W.2 and

P.W.4 when they advised him and even not disputed the

evidence of P.W.4.

54

64.

The other witness is P.W.11. The P.W.11 was also

subjected to cross examination. In the cross-examination of

P.W.11 also, did not dispute the evidence with regard to his bad

reputation and Swamiji as well as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 used

to scold him and no cross-examination at all to this effect.

65.

It is also important to note that P.W.15 is none other

than the relative of the accused that is accused is the sister's

grandson. In the cross-examination of P.W.15, except eli citing

the answer that when the accused was snatching money, but

devotees were not making complaint since they were havi ng

afraid of him and even with regard to the bad reput ation and

antecedents, even in the evidence of P.W.15 also, not disputed.

66.

Having considered the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2,

P.W.4, P.W.11 and P.W.15, it is very clear that accused was

having hatreadness against the P.W.1 and P.W.2. The

prosecution has proved the motive for committing the murder.

67.

The judgment which is relied upon by the counsel

appearing for the appellant reported in (2023) 11 Supreme

Court Cases 255 also discussed with regard to the

55

circumstantial evidence. Prosecution must fulfill that it is a

primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may

be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental di stance

between may be and must be is long and divides vague

conjectures from sure conclusions and also 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 o n any

other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty and

circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency

and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except t he

one to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so

complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the

conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused and must

show that in all human probability the act must have been done

by the accused. The motive is one of the significant factors for

consideration of circumstantial evidence and in view of t he

principles laid down by the judgment of the Apex Cour t with

regard to the circumstantial evidence, this Court has to analyze

the material since five golden principles constitute th e

panchasheela of the proof of a case based on circumstanti al

56

evidence. The Court has to draw an inference with respe ct to

whether the chain of circumstances is complete and when t he

circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must

lead only to the irresistible conclusion. The accused alone is the

perpetrator of the crime in question.

68.

In the case on hand, when the motive is alleged and

though disputed the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W. 5, only

making the suggestions that they were having ill-will against the

accused, but the evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.15 is not disputed

regarding hatreadness. Even the witness P.W.15, who hap pens

to be the close relative of the accused, categorically deposed

with regard to the accused was having hatreadness. Having

considered the evidence available on record, the motive is

proved by the prosecution.

Preparation to commit murder

69.

The second limb of argument of the counsel appearing

for the appellant that even preparation is not proved and though

prosecution relies upon the evidence of the preparation and the

same is not proved and even relies upon the evidence of P.W.9

57

and his evidence is not consistent with regard to the preparation

is concerned. In keeping this argument is concerned, this Court

has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer .

According to him, the accused led him to Mutt and produced the

tablets which were used and mahazar was drawn and emp ty

tablets slips and also the tablets were seized, to that effect, the

prosecution relies upon the evidence of independent wit ness

P.W.7 and he categorically says that on 13.04.2017 he w as

called to the Police Station wherein found CPI, staff and pancha

and accused were there. When the accused was enquired, he

revealed that he kept the tablets in the bag and hen ce, all of

them went to Mutt and accused took him to Mutt and sho wed

suitcase and removed 3 tablets sheet and one was empty, in

another sheet only 2 tablets were there and in anothe r sheet

entire tablets were there and hence, mahazar was draw n and

seized the same and photo was taken. He identifies his signature

in the mahazar Ex.P.22 and photos also, he identifies Ex.P.23 to

Ex.P.26 which were taken at the time of process of mahazar and

seizure and he also identifies photos Ex.P.27, Ex.P.28 and MO.3.

He was subjected to cross-examination and in the cross-

58

examination, he says that he went to Police station around 9:45

a.m., but he did not enquire the accused and they went to Mutt

at around 10 a.m., and this process taken half an hour, but he

cannot tell specifically about the contents of the mahazar and he

also not put any specific mark to those tablets. It is suggested

that MO.3 is nowhere connected to this incident and the same is

denied. Having perused this cross-examination, no question was

put to him that he was not called to Police Station and accused

not led him to Mutt and produced the tablet. The evi dence of

P.W.7 is very clear with regard to the seizure of tab lets is

concerned.

70.

The P.W.8 also speaks about that when he had been

to the medical shop in order to purchase the medicines, Police

came and accused also brought and accused told that he had

purchased the tablets from the said shop and Police have drawn

the mahazar and photos were taken and he identifies t he photo

Ex.P.29 and also the mahazar as Ex.P.30 and signature. In the

cross-examination, except eliciting the answer that he does not

know the medical shop name and also the photographer, nothing

59

is elicited, but he categorically admits that he cannot tell what

has written in the mahazar.

71.

The other witness is P.W.9 who is the owner of the

medical shop. He categorically says that accused used to come

and purchase the medicine from him. It is his evidence that on

13.04.2017, Police came along with the accused and accused

showed his shop and on enquiry of the Police, he revealed that

he gave the tablets based on the prescription i.e., Clonazepam

0.5 mg that was purchased on 20.03.2017 and he is havin g a

receipt and given the zerox copy and the same is marked as

Ex.P.31 and also identifies the signature and Police also drawn

the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.30. He identifies his signature and

identifies photo Ex.P.29 and other receipt register ph oto as

Ex.P.32. He gave the ownership document which is marked as

Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34 and identifies his signature in Ex.P.33 and

Ex.P.34 and also identifies MO.3. This witness was subjected to

cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits th at

C.P.I instructed to produce the document and on the very same

day, he went and gave the same, but he cannot tell con tents of

60

Ex.P.33 and he has not given instructions to prepare th e

mahazar and accused came to his shop once and again he

cannot say the particular date, but the accused disclosed that he

is in Moolegadde Mutt and hence, he was having acquaint ance

with him. He categorically says that he will not give any tablet

without the prescription and categorically says that he gave the

prescription of Dr.Lingaraju. In the cross-examination also, no

suggestion was made to the witness P.W.9 that accused did n ot

purchase the said tablets and material of documentary evidence

as well as the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9 is very clear

that there was a seizure of tablets and also mahazar was drawn.

P.W.9 evidence is very clear that accused only had purcha sed

the Clonazepam 0.5 mg. These evidences are very clear w ith

regard to the preparation is concerned that he had pur chased

the sleeping tablet 0.5 mg and prosecution having consi dered

the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9, proved the preparation

made by the accused.

Recovery of body

72.

The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of

P.W.3 and I.O –P.W.21 that body was recovered at the instance

61

of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that prior to

disclosure by the accused, none of them were aware of de ath of

the boy, only on revealing of the same in his volunta ry

statement, prosecution came to know about the same. The

counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend

that prosecution not proved the recovery and the evid ence of

P.W.3 and P.W.21 is not trustworthy.

73.

The counsel in support of his argument relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2023) 11 Supreme

Court Cases 255 in case of Subramanya V/s State of

Karnataka and the judgment of this Court was reversed by the

Apex Court and brought to notice of this court paragraph No.69

i.e., discovery of dead body and mainly contended by r eferring

paragraph No.76 and 77 whether the prosecution has bee n able

to prove and establish the discoveries in accordance with law.

The Apex Court also extracted Section 27 of the Evidence Act in

paragraph No.76. In paragraph No.76, the Apex Court held that

the first and the basic infirmity in the evidence of al l the

aforesaid prosecution witnesses is that none of them have

62

deposed the exact statement said to have been made by t he

appellant herein which ultimately led to the discovery of a fact

relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

74.

The Apex Court in paragraph 78 of the said judgment

also discussed with regard to that whether the accused while in

custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that

he would lead to the place where he had hidden the site of burial

of the dead body and other incriminating articles and the IO has

to call two independent panch witnesses. Once the two

independent witnesses would arrive at the police statio n,

thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to

make an appropriate statement as he may desire with re gard to

pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the

weapon of offence etc. When the accused makes such

statement, the same should be incorporated in the first part of

the panchanama for the purpose of Section 27 of the E vidence

Act which is always drawn at the police station in the presence of

the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a

particular statement was made by the accused expressing his

63

willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place

where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the

commission of the offence had been hidden, then on the

recovery of the same should be in the second part of

panchanama.

75.

Having considered the principles laid down in the

judgment referred supra, this Court has to examine whe ther

there is such compliance in the case on hand. This Court wo uld

like to rely upon the evidence of PW21, who is the IO , who

recorded voluntary statement of the accused. PW21 catego rically

deposes that accused in his voluntary statement has stated that

he killed the child-Sujay using the sleeping tablet and thereafter

thrown him in the stream and he also made the statemen t that if

accompanies him, he would show the place and hence, that

portion of the voluntary statement is marked as Ex.P46(a). It is

also his evidence that immediately he called two panch

witnesses i.e., CW2 and CW3 and both of them agreed to

become the panchas and accused led the panch witnesses to th e

spot and showed the spot where he thrown the dead body and

64

body was also discovered at the instance of the accused an d

panchas removed the dead body from the stream and kept the

same on the bund of the stream and mahazar was drawn i n

terms of Ex.P18. Now, this Court has to examine the contents of

Ex.P18 regarding recovery of dead body is concerned. Th e first

part of the mahazar Ex.P18 discloses that having secured the

panch witnesses, accused was asked in their presence regarding

what he is going to do and hence, accused made the statem ent

that he kidnapped the child in the midnight at around 12.30 p.m.

and he had thrown him on the stream and he also made the

statement that if they comes along with him, he would also point

out the same and the same is found in the first part o f the

mahazar in paragraph 2. Thereafter, he led the IO a s well as

panch witnesses and taken them near the stream and show ed

the place where he had thrown the child in the stream. This

second part of panchanama discloses that one of the pancha

removed the dead body and kept the same on the bund of the

stream. Even it discloses that there are trees surrounding the

said stream and the same is not visible from the Mutt. T he

65

mahazar also discloses that they collected one liter of water for

chemical examination.

76.

In the cross examination of PW21 with regard to this

procedure is concerned, nothing is elicited from PW21-IO except

eliciting that both panchas came together and also answer

elicited that he did not sign the voluntary statement as Rudresh,

but he had signed the same as Heeremat R. S. and also n ot

seized any articles at the instance of accused. It is only

suggested that someone killed the child and kept the s ame on

the bund of the said stream and the same was denied. Ev en

there is no any effective cross-examination that he did not

record voluntary statement and accused did not give any

information and also no suggestion is made that accused did not

get the panch witnesses and asked the accused to reveal and

even no suggestion is made that accused did not lead the panch

witnesses and also PW1 for discovery of the dead body.

77.

Now, this Court has to examine the evidence of PW3

who is one of the panch witness regarding discovery of the dead

body at the instance of the accused. The witness says that he

66

was asked to come to the police station at around 3.00 p.m., in

connection with committing the murder of a boy and he found

the police, accused and also CW3 in the police station. Th e

evidence of PW3 is very clear that police asked the accuse d in

his presence and accused revealed that he put sleeping tab let

and then took the boy and committed the murder. The accused

also deposed that he would show the place and the police also

made the video recording and taken the photographs o f making

such statement as per Ex.P8. It is also his evidence that all of

them went in the jeep and accused had shown the stream a nd

the same was not flowing but there was a pond and 5 ph otos

were taken in terms of Ex.P9 to P13 in that place and accused

had showed the pond and body was floating and he also

identified the photographs at Ex.P14 and P15 and he is also

there in Ex.P8 to P15. He categorically says that he onl y

removed the dead body from the pond and kept the sam e on the

bund of the pond. He also identifies the dead body as per Ex.P2

to P5 and police also collected the water in the bottle. He himself

filled the water in the said bottle and also identifies the photos at

Ex.P15 to 17.

67

78.

This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In

the cross-examination, it is elicited that he had been to the

police station at around 3.00 p.m., and found CPI, his staff and

CW3. He was called upon to come to police station at arou nd

2.50 p.m., and they left the police station at around 3.10 p.m.,

and in total 5 persons went in the jeep and reached the spot at

3.30 p.m., and also given the location of the place and also he

gives details of boundaries of the spot and panchanama w as

drawn at the spot and the same was written by the const able

and he did not give details how to write the mahazar and then

only he had signed the same. In the cross examination of PW3,

it is suggested that he did not go to spot and mahazar was not

drawn in the spot and accused did not take him to spot and

showed and nothing is elicited and the same is denied. The

evidence of PW3 is consistent with the evidence of PW21-I O.

Hence, it is very clear that on disclosure of information by the

accused himself, two panch witnesses were secured to the police

station. It is also clear that enquired the accused in the police

station itself and he stated that he will take them to the spot

where he had thrown the dead body. Accordingly, took the

68

panch witnesses and police staff and showed the dead body .

Hence, it is very clear that the observations made by the Apex

Court in paragraph 78 is fulfilled by the IO by securi ng the

accused person and enquired the accused in the presence of

panch witnesses and panch witnesses were part of the

information received from the accused and recovery of de ad

body. Thus, there is a clear compliance. The principles laid down

in the judgment with regard to the recovery is concerned will not

comes to the aid of the accused but it comes to the aid of the

prosecution as the same is complied.

79.

The conditions necessary for the applicability of

Section 27 of the Act include the discovery of fact in

consequence of an information received from the accused a nd

discovery of such fact is deposed by both PW1 and PW3 and at

that time, accused is in police custody when he gave the

information and so much of information relates distinctly to the

fact thereby discovered is admissible as held in the judgment of

MOHD. INAYATULLAH vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

reported in (1976) 1 SCC 828 and so also the information must

69

be such as has caused discovery of the fact and information

must relate distinctly to the fact discovered as held by the Apex

Court in the judgment of EARABHADRAPPA vs STATE OF

KARNATAKA reported in (1983) 2 SCC 330 and the same is

complied and the contents of panchanama no doubt, it is not

substantive evidence as held in the case of MURLI vs STATE

OF RAJASTHAN reported in (2009) 9 SCC 417, but law is

settled that substantive evidence is that what has been stated by

the panchas or the persons concerned in the witness box.

80.

But PW21-IO categorically deposed with regard to the

recording of voluntary statement in terms of Ex.P46 and portion

of voluntary statement is marked as per Ex.46(a) rega rding

recovery and the same is substantiated by examining the

witness PW3 who is the panch witness and he categorically

deposes with regard to the first part of panchanama and second

part of panchanama disclosure by the accused as well as

recovery of the dead body and the same has been proved .

Hence, the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra

70

were complied regarding information from the accused as well as

recovery at the instance of the accused.

81.

Though counsel appearing to the appellant would

vehemently contend that the recovery is not proved and the

same not inspires the confidence of the Court but fairly admits

before the Court that there is no any evidence before the Court

that before the information from the accused as well as recovery

at the instance of the accused, no one had any information with

regard to that what had happened. The Court has to take note of

the fact that at the first instance, missing complaint was given

and subsequently, Section 302 of IPC was invoked. It is

important to note that in the complaint itself suspected the role

of the accused who not only taken the dead body in the midnight

but also thrown the same on the stream but he was not p resent

in the early morning and the Mutt door was unlocked a nd he

came when the people are searching the child. But on a n

enquiry, he was very silent when he was asked about the child

and the conduct of the accused was also a material with regard

to the recovery is concerned.

71

82.

This Court also would like to rely upon judgment of

the Apex Court reported in (2023) 16 SCC 510 in a case of

RAMANAND ALIAS NANDLAL BHARTI VS STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH with regard to discovery of evidence and discovery of

weapon and blood stained clothes, non-recording of disclosure of

accused by the IO before two independent witnesses and

absence of proof as to contents of panchanama and acceptin g

the evidence of discovery, the contents of the panchanama must

be proved and therefore, IO in his deposition has to prove the

contents of the panchanama and further held that even if the

independent witnesses to the discovery panchanama are not

examined or if no witness was present at the time of discovery

or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on t he

document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that

the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated

as tainted and the discovery evidence unreliable. In t his

judgment, it is very clear that recovery must be prove d by

examining independent witnesses and also the proposition has to

prove the contents of the panchanama. This Court in d etail

discussed the panchanama which is marked as Ex.P18. It is very

72

clear that the accused disclosed the fact in the presence of

panch witnesses. In the case on hand, PW3 is the panch witness

who is an independent witness and he has spoken about t he

disclosure statement as well as recovery of the dead body in his

presence and his evidence is also credible and nothing is elicited

from the mouth of PW21-IO as well as in the evidence of PW3 to

discredit the same. Hence, the principle laid down in the

judgment with regard to Section 27 of the Evidence Ac t with

regard to recovery is concerned is proved in the case on h and

and even as observed by the Apex Court with regard to its

scope.

83.

The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex

Court reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1439 in the case of

KATTAVELLAI @ DEVAKAR vs STATE OF TAMILNADU and

brought to notice of this Court with regard to the recovery is

concerned. In paragraph 25, the Apex Court with regar d to the

recovery is concerned held that in the confession given by the

convict, certain information regarding the location of material

objects was divulged, that limited portion of the confe ssion

73

become admissible according to Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act. That is the correct proposition in law. Whi le

considering the said proposition of law also taken a not e of

judgment in the case of BIJENDER vs STATE OF HARYANA

reported in (2022) 1 SCC 92 . No dispute with regard to the

admissibility of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that

portion of the confession become admissible.

84.

In the case on hand also, voluntary statement is

marked as Ex.P46 and portion of the voluntary statem ent is

marked as Ex.P46(a) regarding recovery. The Apex Cour t also

discussed in the said judgment in paragraph 26 that the

circumstances in which recovery was made from the location a s

disclosed and comes to the conclusion that the same is not

sufficient to take the recovery of the objects as a circumstance

against the appellant/convict that the objects recovered also

have to be verified and tested and the same was not do ne. But

in the case on hand, it has to be noted that the recovery of the

dead body is from an isolated place i.e., no one can visible the

same and PW3 also categorically says that the same cannot be

74

visible and even mahazar statement also clearly discloses that

the said stream was surrounded with trees. Though counsel

would vehemently contend that the same is open to all but the

same is also not substantiated. It is very clear that the said

stream was behind the mutt and general public cannot acce ss

the same and the same is within the part of the Mutt a nd the

same is located behind the Mutt and topography of the place is

also could be identifiable with the photographs which are marked

before the Court. Even witness PW3 also categorically de poses

that the place in which body was thrown is an isolated area and

hence, the same is a open space cannot be accepted as

contented by the counsel appearing for the appellant.

85.

The counsel appearing for the appellant also would

vehemently contend by relying upon paragraph 41 of t he

judgment that non-examination of the other witnesses. The said

submission also cannot be accepted since, it is not the question

of quantity of the evidence and the Court has to look into the

quality of the evidence. The witnesses have already bee n

examined with regard to prove the fact that motive f or

75

committing a offence by examining PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5 , PW11

and PW15 and also the other witnesses with regard to t he

preparation is concerned i.e., PW7 to PW9. Though ther e were

two panchas, the information of the accused is concerned was

proved by examining PW3 and not examined other panch a since

no need to examine both the witnesses when the evidence of

PW3 is credible with regard to information given by the accused

and led the panch witness as well as other officials to the spot

where the body was thrown and recovery was made at t he

instance of the accused only. Hence, this judgment will also not

comes to the aid of the counsel appearing for the appellant with

regard to the recovery is concerned.

86.

Now, the question before this Court is with regard to

the medical evidence to which this Court already comes to the

conclusion by relying upon the evidence of the doctor PW14 that

it is a case of homicidal.

87.

Now, this Court has to examine the scientific officer

evidence who has been examined as PW18 and his evidence is

very clear that he had received the sealed packet from the IO for

76

examination and it contains 12 items. He found the Clonazepam

contents in Article 1, 3 and 6 and so also in Item No.12 but not

found the clonazepam contents in Item Nos.2, 4, 5, 7 to 11 and

he gave the report in terms of Ex.P41 and he identif ies his

signature at Ex.P41(a). He also identifies MO3-tablets. It is his

evidence that the clonazepam was not found in the bloo d of

Gowramma, Mahadevamma, Ashwini, Shankaraiah and Chai tra.

But reason is given that they were taking medicine immediately.

But blood sample was collected on the next day. In view of

taking of treatment and delay in taking the blood sa mple, the

same was not found as deposed. It is also explained tha t the

blood sample should have been taken within 4 hours and then

clonazepam contents will be more. It is also clarified that in the

blood of the child, clonazepam was found as the body wa s not

working in view of blood circulation was stopped and hence the

same was found. But in the cross-examination, nothing is elicited

from the mouth of this witness except eliciting that in Article 2,

4, 5, 7 to 11 clonazepam contents were not found. Even the

same is also spoken by the witness in the chief evidence itself. It

77

is also elicited that if sambar was eaten, the same would found

or otherwise it will not found.

88.

The other witness is PW19 who is the Deputy Director

of Biology Department, FSL who also conducted the exa mination

of the samples and she did not found diatom when she examined

the water and she gave the report in terms of Ex.P43 and she

identified signature as Ex.P43(a). She also categorically deposes

that if a person lies on the water, if he drinks the water and if

any diatom found in the water and the same will go to the body.

If a person lost his conscious prior to laying into the water and

no diatom in the water, the same will not found. It is also the

categorical evidence is that diatom was not found in the water.

This witness also subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-

examination, it is elicited that if diatom is found in the water, the

same will found in the viscera of the person who died, if diatom

found, the same is on account of drowning.

89.

Having considered the evidence of PW18 and PW19, it

is very clear that the body of the boy found the clona zepam

contents but not found in the body of others. The reaso n also

78

assigned that the blood was collected on the next day but prior

to that, they took the treatment. The evidence is very clear that

on the very next day, when they found dizziness, they all went

to the hospital and they were under medication. Thus, the

evidence of PW18 and PW19 is very clear with regard to the

presence of clonazepam in the body of the child. The ve ry

contention of the counsel appearing for the accused that the

same was not found in the witnesses who went and took t he

treatment and only found in the body of the deceased is doubtful

and the said contention cannot be accepted since the same is

explained by the PW18 clearly and nothing is elicited in the cross

examination of PW18 with regard to the explanation offered by

the PW18 regarding non-presence of clonazepam in the b ody of

these witnesses. Hence, it is clear that the boy was died on

account of consumption of clonazepam contents as well as

drowning.

90.

The counsel appearing for the appellant also relied

upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in 2025 SCC

ONLINE SC 1827 in the case of PUTAI vs STATE OF UTTAR

79

PRADESH and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 69 with

regard to the circumstantial evidence is concerned, wherein it is

held that in an incriminating circumstance so strong that even

taken in isolation, the same would prove the guilt of the

accused. May be proved or must be proved and the fields where

the material objects allegedly belonging to the child victim and

her dead body were found is open and accessible. This C ourt

already discussed in detail that the place where the dead body

was found is in the isolated place and surrounded with the trees

and the same is not visible. Hence, this judgment will not help

the counsel for the accused since the same is not the open

space.

91.

No doubt, if any strong suspicion that the child victim

might have been assaulted in the field of accused that itself is

not sufficient. But in the case on hand, there is an information at

the hands of the accused and body was also recovered at th e

instance of the accused and the same is disclosed in the

statement of the accused and hence, Section 27 of the Evidence

Act is aptly applicable to the case on hand.

80

92.

The counsel for the appellant also relied upon the

judgment reported in (2025) 8 SCC 315 in the case of

VAIBHAV vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and brought to

notice of this Court paragraphs 18 and 19 wherein discusse d

with regard to circumstantial evidence is concerned holding that

an incriminating evidence available on record and subseq uent

conduct of the appellant in trying to show concern to the father

of the deceased despite knowing about the death. But i n the

case on hand, on enquiry, the accused was very silent in the

early morning. Only on apprehending of the accused, he

revealed the same. In paragraph 29 of this judgment,

proposition was held that the burden is on the prosecution and

then shifts on the defence. But defence not made any attempt to

explain the circumstances. But prosecution proved the mat erial

on record. Hence, this judgment also will not come to the aid of

the counsel for the appellant.

93.

The Apex Court recently on 16.01.2026 in the case of

TULASAREDDI @ MUDAKAPPA AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2026 SCC ONLINE SC

81

89 held that mere recovery at the instance of the accused itself

is not enough to convict the accused and disclosure statemen ts

alone not enough for conviction unless chain of evidence is

complete. No dispute with regard to this principle is concerned.

But in the case on hand, it has to be noted that all t he

circumstances goes against the accused i.e., motive for

committing the murder and the same is spoken by PW1, PW 2,

PW4, PW5, PW11 and PW15 and their evidence is consisten t with

regard to the motive is concerned. The preparation to commit

the murder is also spoken by the witnesses for having purchased

the tablet and recovery of the tablet and also he had purchased

the tablet from the medical shop and these witnesses i.e., PW7

to PW9 have supported the case of prosecution for provin g of

preparation. The recovery of the dead body at the in stance of

the accused is also proved by examining PW21 as well as PW 3

and their evidence is consistent. The medical evidence wit h

regard to the homicidal as well as the FSL report also consistent

and scientific evidence also clearly discloses that recovery is

made i.e., blood samples from the body of the deceased and the

same was positive and the remaining tablets were also

82

recovered at the instance of the accused by drawing the

mahazar and mahazar witness also supports the case of

prosecution.

94.

Having taken note of both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record, it discloses that though case is rest

upon the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances against the

accused is proved with regard to the motive, preparatio n,

recovery of dead body and also the tablets at the instance of the

accused. Medical evidence and scientific evidence are also goes

against the accused. When each chain link is established, we do

not find any ground to interfere with finding of the Trial Court

with regard to invoking of Section 302 of IPC is concerned. But

the Trial Court not convicted the accused for kidnapping the child

is concerned since there was no material in this regard and we

confirm the same. Accordingly, we answer point No.(1) a s

‘negative’.

Point No.(2):

95.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and also learned HCGP appearing for the resp ondent-

83

State, we have perused the material available on record. It is the

case of the prosecution that the accused had committed murd er

of a boy, who is aged 3½ year old, since the accused was having

hatredness against P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as P.W.4, since all of

them were scolding him and advising him to mend his att itude

and conduct and he is bringing bad reputation to the Mutt. This

Court having analyzed the material available on the record

comes to the conclusion that the circumstantial evidence points

out the very role of the accused in committing the murd er of a

boy who is aged 3½ years old.

96.

Having considered the sentence imposed by the Trial

Court that the accused has to undergo imprisonment for life that

he has to remain in prison, until his natural death. The Court has

to take note of the fact that whether the said sentence

commensurate with the charges levelled against him. It is

settled law that while imposing sentence, the Court has to take

note of gravity of the offence, the charges levelled against the

accused and the manner in which the offence is committed. The

motive for committing the murder is only hatredness ag ainst

84

P.W.1, mother of the deceased, P.W.2, the grand-mothe r of the

deceased and P.W.4, the great grand-mother of the deceased.

97.

The counsel appearing for the appellant also relied

upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KIRAN v. STATE OF

KARNATAKA reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2863 , wherein

the Apex Court raises a question in paragraph No.8 that whether

the Sessions Court is competent to award a sentence of

imprisonment for life till the remainder of life and prohibit the

benefit of set-off as provided under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

The Apex Court discussing the material on record, in paragraph

No.13, comes to the conclusion that in appropriate cases as a

uniform policy, punishment of imprisonment for life beyond any

remission can be awarded, substituting the death penalty ; not

only by the Supreme Court but also by the High Courts. The

power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life w ithout

remission was conferred only on the Constitutional Court s and

not on the Sessions Courts. Having taken note of the principles

laid down in the judgment, wherein question was also r aised in

paragraph No.8 and so also in paragraph No.13, a conclu sion

85

was arrived by the Apex Court, wherein it is categorically held

that the Supreme Court as well as High Courts can impose life

sentence beyond any remission can be awarded substituting the

death penalty. But powers of the Sessions Court not con ferred

and the same was only on the Constitutional Courts i.e. ,

Supreme Court as well as High Court.

98.

Having perused this principle laid down in this

judgment and also the judgment of the Trial Court, while

sentencing the accused, the Trial Court imposed life

imprisonment that he has to suffer sentence till his natu ral

death. Hence, it is very clear that Section 428 of Cr.P.C. cannot

be invoked in view of specific sentence and no right accrues to

the accused to seek for any remission when the imprisonme nt

for life is imposed, till the remainder of life. Hence, the Session

Court cannot prohibit the benefit of set off as provided under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, with regard to sent ence is

concerned, it requires interference that, imprisonment for life till

natural death is converted to imprisonment for life. Accordingly,

86

we answer point No.(2) as ‘affirmative’ and it requir es

modification.

99.

In view of the discussions made above, we pass the

following:

ORDER

The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.

The judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2017 passed in

S.C.No.10018/2017 for the offence Section 302 of IPC is

confirmed. However, the sentence is modified as life

imprisonment by setting aside the life imprisonment un til his

natural death.

Sd/-

(H.P. SANDESH)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T)

JUDGE

SN/MD/ST/RHS