Karnataka High Court
Nagaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.115/2021
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJU
S/O SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.145, ASHRAYA HOUSE
HOSABALU NAGAR
SINGAPURA VILLAGE
VIDYARANAYAPURA
BENGALURU-560097
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIDYARANAYAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU DISTRICT
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372(2)
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 15.10.2019 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 21.10.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1227/2015 ON THE FILE
OF LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.02.2026 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) This appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 15.10.2019 and order of sentence dated 21.10.2019 passed in S.C.No.1227/2015 on the file of LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and consequently, acquit the appellant/accused for the charges levelled against him.
3
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that one Manjula, the daughter of PW1, got married to one Anand and he died about 2½ years back due to electric shock. Thereafter, the accused got introduced himself to the said Manjula and assured PW1 that he would marry her daughter Manjula and took her to his house No.145 of Singapura village and both of them were residing in that house from last 4 months of the alleged incident. The accused subjected the deceased for cruelty and hence she came back to her mother's house. On 29.07.2015, the accused took the deceased forcefully to his house even though PW1 did not agree to send her back. On the next day, though PW1 tried to contact the accused, he did not respond to the call. On the next day i.e., on 31.07.2015, accused called PW1 and told that the said Manjula is no more. Hence, PW1 and her another daughter went to the spot and found the dead body of her 4 daughter Manjula and accused was also present in that house. Hence, PW1 gave the complaint against the accused and case was registered against him.
4. Based on the complaint, accused was arrested, spot mahazar and inquest mahazar were drawn, post mortem was conducted and pillow was recovered at the instance of the accused in the presence of panch witnesses. The witnesses' evidence was also recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The accused did not plead guilty and claims for trial. Hence, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to PW14 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P20 and seized the material objects at MO1 and MO2. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not adduce any defence evidence.
5. The Trial Court having heard the arguments of the prosecution as well as defence counsel comes to the conclusion that case is rest upon the circumstances evidence 5 and all the circumstances goes against the accused and held that accused has committed the murder of Smt. Manjula and guilt has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, convicted the accused and imposed sentenced against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused/appellant before this Court.
7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal is that the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence. The counsel would contend that in terms of Ex.P1-complaint, the averments made that the appellant came and took the deceased on 29.07.2015 and thereafter, he did not respond to the phone call of PW1 and only on 31.07.2015, accused called PW1 and informed that body of her daughter-Manjula was lying and he is unable to rise the same. Hence, PW1 and her another daughter 6 immediately rushed the spot and found dead body of Manjula. The counsel would vehemently contend that though it is stated that there was a quarrel on 29.07.2015, but for what purpose, they were quarreling is not given. The counsel would contend that though in the complaint, PW1 says that accused came and took her daughter on 29.07.2015, but while giving the evidence, not given on oath that accused took her daughter and not spoken anything about the same. The counsel would vehemently contend that there are contradictions in the evidence with regard to taking the deceased by the accused on the particular date since the evidence of PW4 is contrary to the contents of Ex.P1. The counsel would submit that cause of death is homicidal i.e., due to asphyxia and smothering and the same is not in dispute. The counsel would contend that there is no motive for committing the murder of the deceased. When motive for committing the murder is not proved, the same is significant in a case of circumstantial evidence, thus, it cannot be held that accused has committed the murder. The counsel would 7 submit that PW4 deposes that the deceased did not accompany with the accused, but says that accused made the arrangements of autorikshaw and then deceased went in the autorikshaw to the house of accused. Hence, the evidence of PW4 is contrary to Ex.P1. The counsel would vehemently contend that evidence of PW12 also contradictory to the evidence of PW4 since PW12 says that accused took the deceased along with him. The counsel would submit that PW13 deposes before the Court that accused was a tenant under him. The fact is that accused only called and informed PW1 about the incident and he was in that house itself when PW1 and PW4 visited the said house. The counsel submits that the Court has to see the conduct of the accused. If he really committed the murder, he would have escaped or absconded. The counsel would contend that PW7 though recovery witness, his evidence cannot be considered since the same not inspires the confidence of the Court. The counsel would submit that doctor who has been examined as PW8 deposed with regard to the cause of death. The only 8 circumstances is that the death has taken place in the house of the accused and the same cannot be a sole ground to convict the accused. Unless each and every circumstances are proved, the question of convicting the accused does not arise. There is a weak piece of evidence before the Court and answers elicited from the mouth of witnesses were not taken note of by the Trial Court in a proper perspective while convicting the accused.
8. The counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments, relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2021 ) 5 SCC 626 in the case of SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph 27 wherein it is held that motive would not be relevant if case is rest upon the direct evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. The counsel submits that in the case on hand, no such motive is established and the same is not attributed by the prosecution. In absence of 9 motive, there cannot be any conviction. Hence, the counsel would submit that the above referred judgment will come to the aid of the appellant and prayed to acquit the appellant.
9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that PW1, PW4, PW12 depose before the Court with regard to the last seen theory is concerned. These witnesses categorically submit that accused came and took the deceased on 29.07.2015. Their evidence is not rebutted or controverted by the defence. The counsel would submit that the house in which the dead body was found belongs to PW13 and PW13 categorically deposes that the premises was given to the accused for rent to an amount of Rs.1,000/- and though there was no any agreement of tenancy, document of Ex.P9 - sale deed is produced before the Court to show that the same belongs to PW13 and the same is not disputed by the defence. The counsel would contend that PW1 was informed by accused that her daughter Manjula is no more and he was very much present in the house when PW1 came to the spot but accused 10 did not give any complaint in this regard. Thus, the Court has to take note of the conduct of the accused. But defence contention is that somebody else exploited her for sexual act and committed the murder and the same is not substantiated. The mother of the deceased came and gave the complaint against the accused. It is not disputes the fact that death was in the house of the accused. The counsel also submits that the cause of death is also an account of smothering and the doctor-PW8 deposes the same and also found five injuries which clearly discloses in the PM report. The counsel would submit that even inquest also conducted in the house of the accused. The counsel would vehemently contend that though defence was taken that victim was subjected to sexual act, there is no any medical evidence before the Court to show that before committing the murder of the victim, she was subjected to sexual act and even effective cross-examination of PW8-doctor was not made to the said fact is concerned. The counsel would submit that there is no any explanation in 313 statement that how a smothering was made in his 11 residence and cause of death is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P5-PM report. The counsel would contend that having considered all these materials available on record, Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that accused only committed the murder of the victim. The evidence of PW7 is also very clear that pillow at MO1 was recovered at the instance of the accused when accused only pointed out the same to the police and not concealed the same. The fact is that the same was used for committing the murder of the victim by smothering. Hence, the appellant has not made out any case for acquittal as contended by his counsel. Thus, prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having considered the submission of the appellant counsel as well as counsel appearing for the State, the Point that would arise for the consideration of this appeal is:
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the 12 sentence imposed by the Trial Court requires interference of this Court?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
11. Having heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the charge framed against the accused as well as both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, this Court has to examine the case of prosecution as well as the defence. No doubt, the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence. When the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence, each chain link must be established to convict the accused and all the circumstances must point out the guilt of the accused. Considering the principles laid down in the judgments of SUBRAMANYA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023) 11 SCC 255; in the case of SHARAD BIRDICHAND SARDA vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported (1984) 4 SCC 116; and in the case of RAJA @ RAJINDER vs. STATE OF HARYANA reported 13 in (2015) 11 SCC 43, this Court has to re-appreciate the evidence.
12. Now, this Court has to take note of contents of the complaint at Ex.P1 wherein it is stated that the deceased husband-Anand was passed away 2½ years back due to electric shock and there is no dispute in this regard. The case of complainant-PW1 before the police in terms of Ex.P1 is that subsequent to the death of her son-in-law, the accused came in contact with her daughter - Manjula and he assured that he would give a life to her daughter-Manjula. It is the evidence of PW1 that about 4 months back, accused took her daughter to his house No.145, Singapura Village and both of them residing there. The deceased was insisting the accused to get marry her and register the marriage, but, he was assuring that he would get register the marriage after Ashada. Thereafter, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by both physical and mental, hence, she came back to her mother's house. That on 29.07.2015 at 8.00 p.m. accused came and forced PW1 to send the deceased back to his house, but PW1 refused the 14 same. Inspite of the said refusal, accused forcefully took the deceased to his house. On the very next day, PW1 made all attempt to contact the accused but he did not receive the phone call of PW1. That on 31.07.2015 at 7.00 a.m., accused called PW1 and informed that her daughter-Manjula is no more. Thereafter, PW1 and her another daughter rushed to the house of the accused and found the dead body of Manjula and accused was also very much present in the house. Hence, lodged the complaint on the very same day at about 8.10 a.m. and case was registered and FIR was filed and conducted the investigation. Hence, law was set in motion.
13. Now, this Court has to consider the evidence of PW1. PW1 reiterated the averments made in the complaint in her oral evidence also. PW1 deposed that accused was assaulting her daughter-Manjula. But not stated about the incident dated 29.07.2015 in her evidence that taking of her daughter-Manjula along with accused forcefully. But in her cross-examination, it is elicited that her daughter-Manjula was not married the accused and accused only loving her and took 15 her to his house promising to marry her. But do not remember the date on which day, he came and made galata. It is also elicited that she did not give any complaint with regard to galata and only after the death of her daughter, she gave the complaint. Though it is not elicited from the mouth of PW1 in this regard, but defence counsel itself put the suggestion regarding making of galata and PW1 says that she was unable to tell the date of galata. But it is elicited that when accused and her daughter-Manjula did not receive the call on 30.07.2015, she did not go to the house of the accused. But categorically says that on 31.07.2015, accused only called and informed about the death of her daughter. When a suggestion was made that accused had not committed murder, she categorically says that accused only committed the murder since accused and her daughter were only residing together and no other persons were there with them.
14. Now, this Court has to take note of the evidence of PW4 who is a sister of the deceased and she also reiterated the same in the line of evidence of PW1. She categorically 16 says that on 29.07.2015, accused came and made galata with the deceased and insisted the deceased to accompany him. But her sister did not accompany him and accused called and informed that he is going to send an autorikshaw and come in the said autorikshaw to his house. Hence, deceased went in the autorikshaw. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that deceased went in the autorikshaw. A suggestion was made that no such galata was made by the accused and the same was denied. However, it is elicited that the deceased was going to coolie work and in sometimes, she used to come late to the house and with regard to the harassment, no complaint was given by the deceased.
15. The other witness is PW12 in respect of last seen theory is concerned. PW12 is an independent witness. In his evidence, he says that accused was working in a tent house and came in contact with deceased and both of them were residing in Singapura village in a rented house. This witness deposed that he witnessed the incident on 29.07.2015 near the house of PW1 i.e., galata between the accused and 17 deceased wherein the accused was forcing to take the deceased back and PW1 refused to send her along with accused, but accused forcibly took the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased after two days. This witness has subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he identified the accused based on the video which he had seen. There was no any cross examination that accused did not take the deceased along with him. Even no suggestion was made that there was no such incident on 29.07.2015 that accused was making galata with PW1 and even he has not denied that accused forcefully took the deceased along with him. There is no any effective cross examination of PW12.
16. Having considered the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW12 as well as the contents of the complaint at Ex.P1, it is very clear that incident was taken place on 29.07.2015 and the same is not specifically denied in the cross examination of PW1, PW4 and PW12. No doubt, evidence of PW4 is that accused has sent the autorikshaw and then the deceased went 18 to the house of the accused in an autorikshaw. But the evidence of PW12 is that accused took the deceased along with him forcibly and the same was not denied in the cross examination. In the complaint at Ex.P1 also it is specifically stated by PW1 that accused took her deceased daughter along with him. But minor discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses is that accused did not take the deceased along with him and she went to the house of accused in an autorikshaw and the said evidence will not go to the very root of the case since the very incident dated 29.07.2015 is not denied by the defence during the course of cross-examination. These evidences are only with regard to the last seen theory is concerned and the same could be accepted.
17. Now, the question before this Court is with regard to death of the victim which has taken place in the house of the accused. The said fact is not in dispute. Though it is contended that accused was not residing in the said house, but the evidence of PW13 is very clear that the accused was a tenant under him. PW13 though not produced any document 19 with regard to the tenancy, he had produced Ex.P9 - sale deed to show that he had purchased the said house and also categorically deposes that accused was residing in the said house as a tenant. In the cross-examination of this witness except eliciting that no document for having given the house to the accused, but specific suggestion was made that accused was not residing in the said house and the same was denied. Though PW2 before the police made the statement that at his instance, PW13 let out the premises to the accused but the same is not spoken by PW2 and he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and even nothing is elicited from the prosecution that house was let out by PW13 to accused at the instance of the PW2. But the fact is that PW13 evidence is very clear that the accused was residing in the said house from last 4 to 5 months of the incident. PW13 categorically says that both accused and the deceased came and requested to provide the house and agreed to give rent of Rs.1,000/- and advance of Rs.2,000/- but not given full advance. Hence, document of rent did not take place. The categorical evidence 20 is that both the deceased and the accused were staying in the said house. Having taken note of the evidence of PW13 in the cross-examination, it is clear that he has not denied the same except eliciting the answer that no document of tenancy.
18. It is also important to note that PW1 and PW4 categorically depose that on information given by the accused, they went and found the dead body in the house of the accused and accused was very much present in the said house and the said fact is not disputed by the defence. If accused is not staying in the said house, why he was present along with dead body is not explained. It is also important to note that the counsel for the State brought to notice of this Court that accused has not given the complaint and mother of the deceased has given the complaint and there is no dispute to this fact is concerned. It is not in dispute that death was in the house of the accused. No doubt, counsel appearing for the appellant brought to notice of this Court that if accused has committed the murder, he would have escaped from the spot. But the Court has to take note of the conduct of the accused 21 and at the same time, the Court also has to take note that accused did not give any complaint when the death was taken place in his house. The defence is also that somebody committed sexual act and murdered the victim. But to that effect, no evidence at all. The doctor's evidence is very clear that she was not subjected to any sexual act and even nothing is suggested to the doctor-PW8 in this regard during the course of cross-examination. But the fact is that the deceased had sustained the injuries. In the process of smothering, deceased had sustained the injuries and even doctor has given the opinion that the injuries could be caused in the process of smothering by using MO1-pillow.
19. It is also important to note that MO1 was seized. No doubt, the was seized in the house of accused itself. The counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the same is not a discovery. But the fact is that death was taken place in the house of the accused. Though PW5 turns hostile for recovery of pillow, but the evidence of PW6 is very clear that pillow was there in the house and accused only pointed 22 out the same and police have seized the same by drawing mahazar in terms of Ex.P4. No doubt, it is elicited in the cross examination of PW6 that MO1 would be available everywhere and police have asked him to sign Ex.P4 and he signed the same. But no cross was made to PW6 that accused had not pointed out the pillow and accused did not show the same to the police and no denial at all in his cross examination. PW7, who is a Head Constable, in his evidence categorically deposes that accused only pointed out the pillow and the same was seized under the mahazar Ex.P4. Even with regard to the pointing out the pillow was not denied in his cross examination. There is no effective cross examination with regard to the seizure of pillow at the instance of the accused.
20. It is a case of the prosecution that accused in his voluntary statement at Ex.P15 stated that he used the pillow for committing the murder of the deceased and the same was seized. Thus, the prosecution has proved with regard to the recovery of pillow at the instance of the accused. The accused has not given any explanation in his 313 statement. When 23 incriminating evidence has put during the course of recording statement, the accused ought to have given the explanation. Though defence was taken that somebody committed the murder of the deceased having subjected her for sexual act. But there is no evidence before the Court to show that the deceased was subjected to sexual act. We have already pointed out that there was no any questions in this regard to PW8-Doctor. Having perused the evidence of PW8, it is very clear that the cause of death is due to smothering by using MO1 and in that process, injuries which have been mentioned in the PM report could be caused. But in the cross- examination, except suggesting that he did not write Ex.P5 - Post Mortem report and post mortem was done through somebody else, no suggestion that no such injuries could be caused in the process of smothering and cause of death also not denied by PW8 in his cross-examination. Ex.P5 is very clear that there were five injuries on the dead body. Having taken note of all these materials available on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that an inference could be 24 drawn that accused only committed the murder of the deceased by taking note of conduct of the accused.
21. The other contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that no explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be a sole ground to convict the accused. The said contention cannot be accepted and that is not the only ground available before the Court to convict the accused since each and every circumstances disclose that accused only committed the murder. The contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that there was an admission on the part of PW4 that the sometimes deceased was coming late after finishing her coolie work to the house and the same cannot be a ground to come to a other conclusion that she might have been murdered by somebody else. But the fact is that death was taken place in the house of the accused where both deceased and accused were staying. It is also not in dispute that both of them are residing together. Though the suggestion was made that accused was not residing in that house, the evidence of PW13 is very clear that he only let out 25 the house to accused and deceased 4 to 5 months back when both of them went and requested him to provide the house and the same has not been denied. In keeping the contentions of the appellate counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent/State as well as the evidence available on record before the Court, it is very clear that the same is pointing out the role of the accused in the alleged incident.
22. The other contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that the appellant is in custody for more than 11½ years and the same cannot be ground to acquit the accused in a case of taking life of a person and the same not amounts to incarceration. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted the accused even though the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence. Having considered the material on record, it discloses that the witnesses have spoken with regard to theory of last seen i.e., PW1, PW4 and PW12 stating that accused went and quarreled with the mother of the victim and brought the victim back to his house. The other witness is PW13 who is the owner of the 26 house in which the accused and the deceased were residing together and no explanation was given under Section 106 of Evidence Act. The other circumstances is accused has not given the complaint, only mother of the victim gave the complaint. The accused kept quiet even though he was present in the house and death was also in his house and smothering was also noticed by the medical evidence including the injuries. Though it is contended that death was by the third party subjecting the victim for sexual act. To evidence the said fact also no material before the Court either oral or medical evidence and also not given any explanation in 313 statement by the accused. The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution that cause of death is on account of asphyxia and smothering. All the chain of circumstances are established by the prosecution to bring the fact that accused only committed the murder and minor discrepancies will not take away the case of the prosecution. Hence, we do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the Trial Court since the Trial Court has rightly considered all 27 these aspects and convicted the accused. Hence, we answer the above Point accordingly.
Point No.2:
23. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following:
ORDER The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE SN