CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 02

ND

DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100556 OF 2024

BETWEEN

1. SHEKARAPPA

S/O MUDAKAPPA PUJARI,

AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,

R/O. BEVOOR VILLAGE,

BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. -

587115.

2. GYANAPPA S/O NILAPPA PUJARI

AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,

R/O. BEVOOR VILLAGE,

BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST-587115.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011

THROUGH BAGALKOT RURAL PS.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. SPP.)

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 2 -

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374 (2) OF CR.P. C.

(415 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE

COURT BELOW, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION 30.08.2024 AND

SENTENCE DATED 31.08.2024 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRI CT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BAGALKOTE IN S.C. NO.65/2020 FOR

THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 302, 504, 506(2) R/W

SECTION 34 OF IPC AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT NO .1

AND U/S 302, 307, 504 AND 506(2) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC

AGAINST ACCUSED NO.2/APPELLANT NO.2 ACQUIT THE

APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2 SET AT

LIBERTY FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES, IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 16.07.2026 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

AND

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused

Nos.1 and 2 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Cri minal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), challenging the

judgment and order of conviction dated 30.08.2024 a nd

sentence dated 31.08.2024 on the file of Principal District

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 3 -

and Sessions Judge, at Bagalkote (for short, “trial court”) in

SC No. 65/2020.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

a. One Smt. Mahadevi, the complainant filed the

complaint before the Bagalkot Rural P.S. on 15.10.20 19

bearing Crime No.189/2019 by alleging that she was

married to Shivappa Pujari, (the deceased in this c ase)

about 13 years back, through their wedlock they hav e two

children, and that the deceased was working as driv er in

KSRTC department at Guledagudda Depot.

b. That on 13.10.2019 there was a procession of

Valmiki Jayanti in their village and the sister’s son of the

deceased by name Ayyappa had participated in the cu ltural

activities, their community people namely Gyanappa

(Accused No.2) and Srishail (CCL) had also particip ated.

Few boys had lifted said Ayyappa, and started danci ng, at

that time Gyanappa and Srishail (accused No.2 and C CL)

had questioned regarding why they lifted the said Ayyappa.

In the mean time they deliberately stepped on the f oot of

Ayyappa and picked up a quarrel and started to assault him.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 4 -

By the intervention of Anand and Sanju the quarrel w as

pacified and Ayyappa was brought back to house.

c. Thereafter, all the accused by name Gyanappa,

Shekharappa, Shivappa, Muttappa, Srishail, Neelavva ,

Fakiravva, Dyamavva came together near the house of the

complainant and instructed her to advise Ayyappa as to why

he was quarrelling on the street, and also threaten ed

Ayyappa if he continues such acts in future. The same was

informed by the complainant to her husband (decease d)

over the phone.

d. That, on 14.10.2019 at about 9.30 p.m., her

husband after finishing his work was returning to the house,

and while proceeding on the street infront of the house of

accused No.1 Shekharappa, they had picked up a quar rel

with the deceased pertaining to the incident which had

taken place on 13.10.2019. On hearing the cries of the

quarrel, the complainant along with others immediat ely

came out of the house and noticed that the accused No.1

Shekharappa was assaulting the deceased with hands. The

complainant, Ayyappa and Anand intervened and pacif ied

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 5 -

the quarrel. At that time, accused No.2 Gyanappa, Accused

No.3 Shivappa and accused No.4 Muttappa had caught hold

of the deceased. Accused No.1 Shekharappa came out of

his house holding a sickle and assaulted on the left portion

of the deceased’s chest. One Srishail /CCL assaulted with a

sickle on the deceased’s right hand fingers, due to which

deceased had sustained bleeding injuries. Accused N o.6

Neelappa, Accused No.7 Fakiravva, accused No. 8

Dyamavva assaulted the deceased with club, kicked w ith

legs and caused the deceased to fall on the ground.

e. When the public arrived, the accused fled from

the spot. The complainant noticed that her husband was

not in a position to speak, then he was shifted to the

Bagalkote District Hospital in an ambulance, where h e

succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospita l.

Hence, the complaint.

3. The police after receipt of the complaint, and

after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet

against the accused Nos. 1 to 8 which was registered as SC

No. 65/2020 and against CCL before the J. J. Board, later

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 6 -

transferred to Children’s Court and registered as Spl. Case

No.78/2022. Both cases were tried before the Princip al

District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote.

4. In SC No. 65/2020, the prosecution produced the

oral evidence by examining 16 witnesses as P.W.1 to

P.W.16, produced documents as Ex.P-1 to P-40 and

material objects M.O 1 to 8. In Spl. Case No. 78/2022, the

prosecution produced the oral evidence by examining 16

witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.16, got marked 19 docume nts

as Ex.P-1 to P-19 and material objects as M.O 1 and 2.

5. After completion of the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, accused in SC No. 65/2020 we re

examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, where they de nied

the incriminating evidence, appearing against them in the

evidence of prosecution witnesses. They did not choose to

lead any defence evidence, however, they got marked Ex.D-

1 to D-5 i.e., portion of the statement of PW.4 and PW.11.

6. Similarly, CCL in Spl. Case No. 78/2022 was

examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, whereby he de nied

the incriminating evidence, appearing against him i n the

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 7 -

evidence of prosecution witnesses. He did not choos e to

lead any defence evidence, however, he got marked E x.D-1

to D-5 i.e., portion of the statement of PW.4 and PW.11.

7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence, the trial court clubbed both the cases an d

pronounced the common judgment vide impugned

judgment dated 30.08.2024 whereby accused Nos. 1 an d 2

(Shekharappa and Gyanappa) in SC No. 65/2020 are fo und

guilty of certain offences charged against them.

8. Accused No.1 is convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 506(2) R/w S ection

34 of the IPC and acquitted of the offences punisha ble

under Section 143, 147, 148, 341 and 307 R/w 149 of IPC.

9. Accused No.2 is convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 506(2) R/w

Section 34 of the IPC and acquitted of the offences

punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 341 R/w 149 of

IPC.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 8 -

10. Remaining accused in SC No. 65/2020 and CCL

in Spl. Case No. 78/2022 are acquitted of all the offences

charged against them.

11. The trial court has sentenced the accused Nos. 1

and 2 as under:

“Accused Nos.1 & 2 namely Shekarappa

S/o Mudakappa Pujari & Gyanappa S/o Nilappa

Pujari are each sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five Thousand) and in

default to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of one (1) year for the offence punishable

under Section 302 read with Sec.34 of IPC.

Further the accused No.2 namely Gyanappa

S/o Nilappa Pujari is sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (5)

years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two

Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for

the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

Accused Nos.1 & 2 namely Shekarappa S/o

Mudakappa Pujari & Gyanappa S/o Nilappa Pujari

are each sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of three (3) months

and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two

Thousand only) each and in default to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15)

days for the offence punishable under Section

504 read with section 34 of IPC.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 9 -

Accused Nos.1 & 2 namely Shekarappa S/o

Mudakappa Pujari & Gyanappa S/o Nilappa Pujari

are each sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and

to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees One

Thousand only) and in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month for the

offence punishable under Section 506 read with

Sec.34 of IPC.”

All the aforesaid substantial sentences shall

run concurrently.

Acting under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C., it is

ordered that both the accused Nos.1 & 2 shall

pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand) to victim P.W.1-Mahadevi

W/o: Shivappa Pujari i.e., wife of the deceased

towards compensation. If the amount remains

unpaid, it shall be recovered from the accused or

from their property as per Section 431 Cr.P.C.

It is made clear that even if the accused

undergoes the default sentence, they are not

absolved of their liability to pay the fine amount

in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of

Section 421 Cr.P.C.”

12. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, accused Nos. 1 an d 2

have preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

a. Order of conviction is bad in law as there

are serious inconsistencies in the evidence

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 10 -

of prosecution witnesses and it is also

opposed to law and facts.

b. The trial court failed to consider the

evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper

perspective, failed to examine independent

witnesses.

c. The trail court failed to consider

contradiction with reference to injuries said

to have been suffered by deceased

Shivappa and injured Gyanappa.

d. In the complaint it is alleged that CCL

assaulted the deceased with sickle, but

PW.1 in her evidence stated that accused

No.2 had assaulted the deceased with

sickle, thereby there is a clear element of

false implication which is not appreciated

by the trial court.

e. There is discrepancy with regard to

recovery of M.Os and blood stain on the M.

O.1.

f. The evidence of pancha witnesses PW.2

and 3 does not corroborate each other.

g. The trial court failed to appreciate the

evidence of PW.4 who claimed to be an

injured witness and that he is not truthful

witness.

h. The trail court committed an error in

convicting accused No.2 for the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC, though

prosecution has failed to produce sufficient

evidence and the doctor has admitted that

he had not treated the injured as inpatient.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 11 -

i. The trail court failed to notice that as per

the evidence of PW.5, there were 20 to 30

public were present, but the prosecution

did not examine any of them, which

creates doubt about the case of the

prosecution.

j. PW.5 admitted that quarrel went on until

12.00 in the midnight, and he did not come

to inform the out post police which is not

appreciated by the trail court.

k. The trail court has not appreciated that

there was a primary health center in the

village and after the incident they have

taken injured/ deceased to the hospital in

an auto, the doctors at PHC treated the

injured, thereafter advised to shift for

higher treatment, but the prosecution

failed to produce any material regarding

the same.

l. The trail court failed to appreciate that

PW.8, the doctor who conducted the post

mortem, has not stated about the

sharpness of the sickle.

m. The trail court has not properly appreciated

the various injuries sustained by the

accused No.2 on his leg, hand, face and

has stated that those injuries are not

serious injuries.

n. The trail court has not properly appreciated

the evidence of PW.11, 13, 14, 15 and 16

in proper perspective.

o. The trail court failed to appreciate that the

incident was a clear case where the

witnesses are themselves the aggressors

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 12 -

and accused have also suffered injuries

which are serious in nature and the trial

court has not properly appreciated that the

prosecution has suppressed the genesis of

the incident.

p. The trail court failed to appreciate that

there was no independent and reliable

corroboration, the evidence of interested

witnesses cannot be relied upon, there are

discrepancies, inconsistencies affecting the

case of prosecution and its credibility and

erroneously convicted the accused.

13. On these grounds, the appellants prayed for

allowing this appeal by setting aside the impugned

judgment and to acquit the appellants/ accused 1 and 2 of

all the offences.

14. Accordingly, the points that would arise for our

consideration are:

1. Whether the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed

by the trial Court suffers from illegality,

perversity and warranting interference by

this Court ?

2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is

justified in convicting the accused for the

offence punishable under section 302 of

IPC?

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 13 -

15. For convenient reference, the particulars of the

witnesses examined by the prosecution and the subst ance

of their evidence are set out as under:

a) PW1 Mahadevi Pujari, the complainant and wife

of the deceased deposes about the incident and the lodging

of the complaint and the seizure of the material object.

b) PW2 Yankappa Talawar, is a panch witness i.e.

seizure of material object sickle by drawing of Mah azar

Ex.P2, and witness to Mahazar Ex.P7 i.e. the collection of

viscera from the dead body of the deceased.

c) PW3 Kubanna Pujari is also witness to Ex.P2 and

P7.

d) PW4 Gyanesh Balanaik is eyewitness to the

incident who has supported the prosecution version.

e) PW5 Ayyappa Gani is eyewitness to the incident

who has supported to the prosecution version.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 14 -

f) PW6 Dayanand Biradar is the witness to inquest

Mahazar Ex.P11 and deposes about the injury found o n the

dead body and further he is also witness to seizure Mahazar

Ex.P13,i.e., seizure of cloths of deceased.

g) PW7 Jyothi Biradar is an eyewitness to the

incident who has supported to the prosecution case.

h) PW8 Dr. Anand Mugadlimath, Department of

Forensic Medicine conducted post mortem on the dead body

of the deceased as per post mortem report Ex.P14.

i) PW9 Dr. Rahul Joshi treated the injured Gyanesh

Manappa Balanaik, Gyanesh Pujari (A2) and Shivappa

Pujari, the deceased, on 14.10.2019.

j) PW10 Dr. Vijaya Mahantesh, treated Shekappa

Mudakappa Pujari and Gyanesh Pujari (A2), on 15.10.2019.

k) PW11 Inavati Walikar is said to be an eyewitness

to the incident.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 15 -

l) PW12, PW13, PW14, PW15 and PW16 are the

Police officials who deposed about the investigation and

filing of the chargesheet.

Reasoning:

16. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of

the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the

defence, came to the conclusion that, in S.C. No.65/2020,

the prosecution had proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2

beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2

were convicted, while the remaining accused were

acquitted. The CCL concerned in Special Case No.78/ 2022

was also acquitted.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

contended that there are discrepancies, inconsistencies and

material variations in the evidence of the prosecut ion

witnesses. However, the Trial Court failed to prope rly

appreciate the said evidence and, erroneously placi ng

reliance upon the same, proceeded to convict accused Nos.1

and 2.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 16 -

18. It was further contended that, as per the

evidence of PW.15, the dead body of the deceased wa s sent

to a private hospital for post-mortem examination.

According to the learned counsel, the post-mortem

examination ought to have been conducted in a

Government Hospital. However, the Investigating Off icer

has not assigned any reason for sending the dead body to a

private hospital. It is, therefore, contended that the manner

in which the post-mortem examination was conducted

creates a doubt regarding the prosecution case.

19. It was further contended that the Investigating

Officer had not conducted any panchanama inside the house

of the complainant. It was also argued that, from t he

evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that the

dispute arose gradually and that the incident did not occur

all of a sudden.

20. On an overall appreciation of the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, learned counsel contended th at the

incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel and

upon grave and sudden provocation.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 17 -

21. It was further submitted that both the accused

have been in custody for a period of about six year s and

that accused No.2 is a student. Therefore, it was contended

that the prosecution had failed to establish any

premeditation or preparation on the part of the accused to

cause the death of the deceased. Hence, learned cou nsel

sought interference with the judgment of conviction and

prayed that the appellants be acquitted of the char ges

levelled against them.

22. Per contra, learned Additional SPP contended

that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and that all the

eyewitnesses have deposed consistently that they witnessed

the quarrel and saw the accused assaulting the dece ased

with sickles, thereby causing his death.

23. It was argued that there was no provocation

whatsoever on the part of the deceased. With regard to the

post-mortem examination having been conducted in a

private hospital, it was submitted that, as no forensic expert

was available in the Government Hospital, the dead body

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 18 -

was taken to a private hospital for post-mortem

examination.

24. It was further contended that, when the

eyewitnesses had witnessed the incident and their evidence

corroborates each other on material particulars, th e

prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused were responsible for causing the death of the

deceased. Therefore, it was argued that the Trial Court was

justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the IPC. It was further submitted that

the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses is duly corroborated

by the medical evidence.

25. We have carefully gone through the evidence

available on record. Coming to the evidence of the

eyewitnesses, PW.4 has deposed that, on 14.10.2019 at

about 9:30 p.m., when he was in his house, he heard a

quarrel in front of the house of accused No.1. On coming to

the spot, he saw the other accused holding the dece ased

and assaulting him. He further deposed that accused No.1

brought a sickle and assaulted the deceased on his chest,

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 19 -

while accused No.2 went inside the house, brought another

sickle and assaulted the deceased on his right hand . He

further stated that, when CW.6 intervened to pacify the

quarrel, the accused assaulted him as well.

26. Though a suggestion was put to PW.4 on behalf

of the accused that he was not present at the time of the

incident and that the accused had not assaulted the

deceased, nothing material was elicited in the course of his

cross-examination to discredit or discard his testimony.

PW.5 has also deposed that he witnessed the accused

assaulting the deceased with sickles. Though PW.5 w as

subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defen ce,

nothing material was elicited to discredit his evidence or

render his testimony unreliable.

27. Similarly, PW.11, who is also an eyewitness to

the incident, has deposed that the accused assaulte d the

deceased with sickles. Though all these witnesses w ere

subjected to lengthy cross-examination and suggesti ons

were put to them that they were not present at the time of

the incident and that the accused had not assaulted the

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 20 -

deceased, nothing material was elicited from their evidence

to establish that they were not present at the scen e of

occurrence or to create any reasonable doubt regarding the

credibility and reliability of their testimony.

28. On careful appreciation of the evidence of the

eyewitnesses, as rightly contended by the learned

Additional SPP, it is evident that there are eyewitnesses

who have witnessed the occurrence. Their evidence inspires

confidence and has been rightly accepted by the lea rned

Sessions Judge. The testimony of the eyewitnesses i s

consistent on material particulars and remains unshaken in

the course of cross-examination. Therefore, we are of the

considered view that the prosecution has establishe d the

involvement of the accused in the commission of the

offence beyond reasonable doubt.

29. Insofar as the death of the deceased is

concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased d ied a

homicidal death. The evidence of the eyewitnesses

establishes that the accused assaulted the deceased with

sickles, as a result of which he sustained injuries and

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 21 -

succumbed to the same. Thus, the prosecution has

established that the accused were responsible for causing

the homicidal death of the deceased.

30. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants,

during the course of arguments, submitted that, even if this

Court comes to the conclusion that the accused were

responsible for causing the death of the deceased, there

was no motive for them to commit the murder. It was

argued that the incident occurred in the course of a quarrel

and that the accused assaulted the deceased while

exercising their right of private defence and due to sudden

provocation. Therefore, it was contended that, in t he

absence of any prior preparation or premeditation a nd

having regard to the circumstances in which the inc ident

occurred, the accused are entitled to the benefit o f the

exception to Section 300 of the IPC and that the offence, if

any, would amount to culpable homicide not amountin g to

murder, punishable under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.

31. Having held that accused Nos.1 and 2 were

responsible for causing the homicidal death of the

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 22 -

deceased, the next question that arises for our

consideration is whether the act committed by them

amounts to “culpable homicide” within the meaning of

Section 299 of the IPC. If the act is found to cons titute

culpable homicide, the further question that arises for

consideration is whether it amounts to “murder”

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, or “culpable

homicide not amounting to murder” punishable under

Section 304 of the IPC.

32. For determining when culpable homicide amounts

to murder and when it does not, it is necessary to refer to

Section 300 of the IPC, which reads as follows:

“300. Murder.— Except in the cases

hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if

the act by which the death is caused is done with the

intention of causing death, or—

Secondly—If it is done with the intention of

causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to

be likely to cause the death of the person to whom

the harm is caused, or—

Thirdly—If it is done with the intention of

causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily

injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 23 -

Fourthly—If the person committing the act

knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it

must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily

injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such

act without any excuse for incurring the risk of

causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is

not murder.— Culpable homicide is not murder if

the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-

control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the

death of the person who gave the provocation or

causes the death of any other person by mistake or

accident.

The above exception is subject to the following

provisos:—

First—That the provocation is not sought or

voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for

killing or doing harm to any person.

Secondly—That the provocation is not given by

anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public

servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such

public servant.

Thirdly—That the provocation is not given by

anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of

private defence.

Explanation.—Whether the provocation was

grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence

from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Exception 2.— Culpable homicide is not murder

if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the

right of private defence of person or property,

exceeds the power given to him by law and causes

the death of the person against whom he is

exercising such right of defence without

premeditation, and without any intention of doing

more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such

defence.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 24 -

Exception 3.— Culpable homicide is not murder

if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a

public servant acting for the advancement of public

justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and

causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith,

believes to be lawful and necessary for the due

discharge of his duty as such public servant and

without ill-will towards the person whose death is

caused.

Exception 4.— Culpable homicide is not murder

if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden

fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel

and without the offender having taken undue

advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation.— It is immaterial in such cases

which party offers the provocation or commits the

first assault.

Exception 5.— Culpable homicide is not murder

when the person whose death is caused, being above

the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the

risk of death with his own consent.”

33. A reading of Section 300 of the IPC makes it

clear that it consists of two parts. The first part sets out the

circumstances in which culpable homicide amounts to

murder, while the second part provides for the exce ptions

under which culpable homicide does not amount to mu rder.

For the purpose of the present case, Clause (4) of Section

300 and Exception (4) thereto are relevant.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 25 -

34. Under Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC,

culpable homicide amounts to murder if the person

committing the act knows that it is so imminently

dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or

such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits

such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing

death or such injury.

35. Exception (4) to Section 300 of the IPC,

however, provides that culpable homicide is not murder if it

is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fig ht, in

the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the

offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel

or unusual manner. The Exception further makes it c lear

that, in such cases, it is immaterial which party offered the

provocation or committed the first assault.

36. In the present case, the appellants/accused

Nos.1 and 2 have not disputed that the deceased die d a

homicidal death. The principal question, therefore, is

whether, having regard to the circumstances in whic h the

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 26 -

incident occurred, the act committed by the accused falls

within any of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.

37. Having considered the provisions relating to

culpable homicide and murder, as noticed above, we now

turn to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As

already observed, there are certain serious lapses on the

part of the Investigating Officer. In particular, t he

Investigating Officer has failed to conduct a prope r

investigation with regard to the injuries sustained by

accused No.1 during the incident. Further, although it is the

case of the prosecution that accused No.2 was prese nt at

the scene of occurrence, he was not arrested on the date of

the incident. No satisfactory explanation has been offered

by the prosecution for such omission.

38. The aforesaid circumstances assume significance

while considering the defence of the accused that t he

incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel and

without any premeditation. Therefore, it is necessa ry to

examine whether the prosecution has established tha t the

accused acted with the requisite intention or knowledge so

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 27 -

as to bring their acts within the ambit of Section 300 of the

IPC, or whether the case falls within Exception (4) to

Section 300 of the IPC.

39. As already observed, on perusal of the complaint

at Ex.P.1, it is stated that, on the previous day, i.e., on

13.10.2019, Valmiki Jayanti was celebrated in the village of

the complainant. During the procession held in conn ection

with the said celebration, a quarrel had taken place with

regard to the participation of Ayyappa, who is the son of the

deceased’s sister, in the cultural activities.

40. It is further alleged that, on the following day,

i.e., on 14.10.2019, at about 9:30 p.m., when the deceased

was returning to his house after completing his work, and

while he was proceeding along the street in front o f the

house of the accused, the accused picked up a quarrel with

him in connection with the incident that had occurred on the

previous day. It is alleged that the remaining seven accused

also gathered at the spot, assaulted the deceased a nd

caused his death.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 28 -

41. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of

the evidence available on record, convicted accused Nos.1

and 2 and acquitted the remaining accused. Learned

counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, having

regard to the fact that the learned Sessions Judge, on

appreciation of the very same evidence, had acquitted the

remaining accused, the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2

on the basis of such evidence is erroneous. It was,

therefore, argued that the impugned judgment of conviction

suffers from illegality, irregularity and perversity.

42. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has

relied upon the following judgments in support of h is

contentions:

a. Ex. Ct. Mahadev v. Director General,

Border Security Force and Others , reported

in (2022) 8 SCC 502.

b.

Suresh Singhal v. State (Delhi

Administration), reported in (2017) 2 SCC

737.

c.

Mohammad Khan and Others v. State of

Madhya Pradesh , reported in (1971) 3 SCC

683.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 29 -

d. Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidraj

Laxman Chougala and Others , reported in

(2019) 8 SCC 50.

e.

Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in

(2023) 18 SCC 806 .

f.

Jharmal and Others v. State of Haryana ,

reported in (1994) 2 SCC 551.

g.

Harjit Singh and Others v. Union of India

and Others, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 553.

h.

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and

Another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 333.

i.

State of Punjab v. Gurbux Singh and

others, reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 734 .

j.

Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association v.

State of Assam and Another , reported in

1995 Supp (3) SCC 736 .

k.

Rajendra Singh v. State of Haryana ,

reported in (2014) 15 SCC 507.

43. We have carefully gone through the judgments

relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

The first judgment, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 502 , relates

to the exercise of the right of private defence. It has been

observed therein that the right of private defence is

essentially a defensive right and is available only when the

circumstances justify its exercise.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 30 -

44. In the present case, learned counsel for the

appellants contended that, according to the prosecu tion

case, the incident occurred on the street in front of the

house of the accused. It was, therefore, argued that, if the

accused had any motive or intention to kill the deceased,

they could have gone near the house of the deceased and

assaulted him there, instead of assaulting him in front of

their own house.

45. It was further contended that the deceased had

provoked the accused, resulting in a quarrel, and that the

accused, while exercising their right of private de fence,

assaulted the deceased. Learned counsel placed reli ance

upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

wherein, having regard to the facts and circumstanc es of

that case, the accused was held guilty of culpable homicide

not amounting to murder, falling within Exception ( 2) to

Section 300 of the IPC, and was sentenced to the pe riod

already undergone.

46. In another decision, reported in (2019) 8 SCC

50, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered the scope of

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 31 -

the right of private defence. It was observed therein that,

where the assault was made on the spur of the momen t,

without premeditation, and both sides had sustained

injuries, the conviction could be altered to one un der

Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

47. In the present case also, accused No.2, namely,

Gyanappa, sustained injuries during the incident. T he

prosecution examined PW.10, the doctor, who deposed

that, on 15.10.2019 at about 3:35 a.m., one Gyanesh

Pujari, aged 19 years, came to the hospital for treatment

with a history of assault. He had sustained a laceration over

the forehead, an incised wound over the right forearm and

an abrasion over the right hand. PW.10 issued the w ound

certificate in respect of the said injuries, which is marked as

Ex.P.18.

48. Thus, as rightly contended by learned counsel

appearing for the appellants, on careful scrutiny of the oral

and documentary evidence available on record, we find that

there was no established motive on the part of the accused

to cause the death of the deceased and that there w as no

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 32 -

prior premeditation to commit the offence. The evidence on

record further indicates that a quarrel had taken place and

that, in the course of the said quarrel, the accuse d

assaulted the deceased with a sickle. The fact that accused

No.2 himself sustained injuries during the incident also

assumes significance while considering the manner in which

the occurrence took place.

49. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances,

coupled with the evidence available on record and t he

principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by learned

counsel appearing for the appellants, we are of the

considered opinion that the case falls within the ambit of

Exception (4) to Section 300 of the IPC .

50. Exception (4) to Section 300 of the IPC

specifically provides that it is immaterial which party offered

the provocation or committed the first assault. Therefore,

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court

erred in convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the off ence

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. In our considered

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 33 -

view, the acts attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2, o n the

facts established on record, would amount to culpable

homicide not amounting to murder , punishable under

Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

51. In the result, the points raised for consideration

are answered accordingly, and we proceed to pass th e

following:

ORDER

The appeal filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 is

allowed in part.

The impugned judgment and order of

conviction dated 30.08.2024 and the order of

sentence dated 31.08.2024 passed by the

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot,

in S.C. No.65/2020, stand modified.

The judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

IPC are hereby set aside.

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

However, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found

guilty of the offence punishable under Part II of

Section 304 of the IPC and are accordingly

convicted for the said offence.

CRL.A NO.100556/2024

- 34 -

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

six years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each.

In default of payment of the fine amount,

accused Nos.1 and 2 shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year each.

Insofar as the other offences for which

accused Nos.1 and 2 have been convicted are

concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed

thereunder are maintained.

The substantive sentences shall run

concurrently. The sentence imposed in default of

payment of fine shall run consecutively.

The period of sentence already undergone

by accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be set off in

accordance with Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

Out of the fine amount deposited, a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the wife and two

children of the deceased towards compensation

as under:-

Rs.50,000/- to the wife, Rs.25,000/- each

to two children and the remaining amount of

Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.

Sd/-

(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)

JUDGE

KKP / CT-CMU