Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmamma vs State By on 6 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
CRL.A No. 263 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH 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.263 OF 2021 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1345 OF 2018 (C)
IN CRL.A No.263/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O. THAMMAIAH
RESIDENT OF THIPPAGONDANA HALLI
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL-562 130.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA AND:
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU - 562 157.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
CRL.A No. 263 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018
HC-KAR
CONVICTION DATED 18-7-2018 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.90 OF 2016 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 498A OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO.1345/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
RESIDENT OF YAMAPURA VILLAGE
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-562 127.
2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O. CHIKKARAMAIAH
RESIDENT OF HABBUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 107.
3. SMT. MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O. KRISHNAPPA
RESIDING AT ANCHEPALYA VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 073.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H.L. JAYARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
CRL.A No. 263 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION DATED 18-7-2018 PASSED BY THE VIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.90 OF
2016 C/W SESSIONS CASE NO.156 OF 2016 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.3, 4 AND 5 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114 AND 498A OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for appellant/accused No.1, Sri H.L. Jayaramu, learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.3 to 5 and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR
2. Crl.A.No.263/2021 is filed by accused No.1 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w S.C.No.156/2016 by learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for further period of two years and simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 9 months.
3. Crl.A.No.1345/2018 is filed by accused Nos.3 to 5 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w S.C.No.156/2016 by learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby accused Nos.3 to 5 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 114 IPC, in default to undergo further -5- NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR simple imprisonment for further period of two years and simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months.
4. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that accused No.1 married the deceased about 10 years ago, and they have an 8-year-old daughter named Nandita. Accused No.2 had sold his land and divided the sale proceeds among his daughters, accused Nos.3 to 5. He also gave the deceased, Bagyamma, a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which she kept in a fixed deposit (FD). Accused No.1 was pressuring the deceased to withdraw the said amount and hand it over to him. In this regard, all the accused persons were physically and mentally harassing the deceased. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 5 were discussing, in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 at Thippagondanahalli about transfer of land in the name of accused No.2 to accused Nos.3 to 5. The deceased objected to the proposal of giving any share to the daughters. Consequently, she was subjected to ill-treatment. A panchayat was conducted, during which the accused were advised not to -6- NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR harass the deceased, and the deceased was also pacified. Despite this, accused Nos.2 to 5 allegedly instigated accused No.1 to do away with the deceased, stating that there would be no trouble if she died.
5. On 22.12.2015 at about 5:00 a.m., in the kitchen, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased on the head with a machete and also struck her on the face with his hands, resulting in her death. Subsequently, a case was registered, the police investigated the matter, recorded the statements of witnesses, and filed the charge sheet. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution examined witnesses PWs.1 to 13 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The prosecution also marked Material Objects (MOs) 1 to 10, which included the sickle, the victim's clothes, pillow cover, bed sheet, and the blood-stained baniyan and shirt of accused No.1, marked as MOs.9 and 10. Accused No.1 adduced defence evidence by examining DWs.1 to 3 and did not mark any documents on his behalf.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR
7. The trial Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. The trial Court also convicted accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A of IPC. Accused No.2 died during the pendency of the trial, and therefore, the case against him stood abated.
8. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 contended that the Sessions Judge committed an error in holding that the prosecution had proved the case against accused No.1. The counsel vehemently argued that the incident took place in the year 2015 and that the couple had lived together for about 10 years since their marriage in 2005, during which there were no serious disputes between them.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation is that the injuries to the head were caused by the use of a sickle. It was contended that when PW1 came to the house of the deceased, he noticed the sickle at the spot. However, this version is contrary to the evidence of PW5 and PW6, who deposed that the sickle was seized from a bush in -8- NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR the presence of panch witnesses. The learned counsel submitted that the alleged recovery of the sickle is doubtful and has not been properly proved. It was contended that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 is contradictory. Both witnesses stated that they had seen the accused throwing the sickle; however, according to the Investigating Officer, the place of recovery was about half a kilometre away from the place of the incident. There are material contradictions in the evidence of PW5 and PW6 with regard to the recovery of the sickle, particularly when they claim to have witnessed the accused throwing it.
10. The learned counsel further contended that the prosecution has not led any convincing evidence to establish any enmity or motive on the part of the accused to take the life of the deceased. There is no direct eyewitness to the incident, and PW5 and PW6 are only circumstantial witnesses. It was argued that the prosecution has failed to establish each link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.3 to 5 vehemently contended that, in the first instance, the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR charge sheet was filed only against accused No.1, and subsequently, a split-up charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.2 to 5. It was argued that there is no proximate or credible material to implicate accused Nos.3 to 5 in the alleged offence, only PW1 has stated that accused Nos.3 to 5 instigated accused No.1 over the phone; however, no mobile phone was seized, nor was any supporting material collected by the prosecution to substantiate such an allegation.
12. It was further contended that PW9, the father of the deceased, did not make any specific allegations against accused Nos.3 to 5. PW5 deposed that only accused Nos.1 and 2 were subjecting the deceased to harassment. PW6 also categorically stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 were not visiting the house and that only accused No.5 used to visit occasionally. Therefore, it was argued that there is no material placed before the Court to connect accused Nos.3 to 5 with the commission of the crime.
13. Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the State, submitted that PW1 has specifically spoken against accused Nos.3 to 5.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR Though PW9 has not made any allegations against them, the material available on record clearly indicates that the deceased had objected to the proposal of giving a share in the property to accused Nos.3 to 5. It was contended that when the father attempted to transfer a share in the property in favour of the daughters, disputes arose between the parties. Therefore, there was a motive, and accused Nos.3 to 5 instigated accused No.1 to take away the life of the deceased.
14. The learned HCGP further vehemently contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is clear and cogent. PW1 has deposed that accused No.1 was subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment. On receiving information from PW5 and PW6, PW1 rushed to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased. PW10 has spoken about the panchayat proceedings. With regard to the recovery, PW4, the panch witness, has categorically deposed about the same, and there has been no effective cross-examination, except for a single line of cross-examination.
15. The learned HCGP further submitted that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 is clear and consistent, as both
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR witnesses have deposed that they saw the accused leaving the house in the early morning at about 5:30 a.m., carrying a sickle, which was stained with blood. Their evidence, according to the prosecution, clearly establishes that the accused alone committed the murder.
16. It was contended that the trial Court, after taking into consideration all these factors, rightly convicted the accused. The prosecution also emphasized that the incident took place inside the house of the accused, and no explanation was offered by him as to how the murder occurred within his house, which is an additional circumstance against him. The trial Court, upon considering the material on record, accepted the case of the prosecution. It observed that the only discrepancy was in the evidence of PW1, who stated that he found the sickle at the spot. However, the spot mahazar does not disclose the presence of the sickle at the scene of occurrence. The trial Court held that this minor discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. Accordingly, it concluded that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR
17. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for accused No.1, the learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.3 to 5, and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, and upon giving our anxious consideration to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the following points arise for consideration before this Court:
1. Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code?
3. Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction call for interference by this Court?
Reg. Point No.1
18. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.3 to 5 and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State, it is not in dispute that the marriage between accused No.1 and the deceased took place in the year 2005. The incident occurred in the year 2015, and they had
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR lived together for about 10 years, particularly along with accused No.2 and his wife.
19. It has emerged in the evidence that PW6 has categorically stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 were not visiting the house and that only accused No.5 used to visit occasionally. The evidence against accused Nos.3 to 5 consists solely of an omnibus statement made by PW1 that they were instigating accused No.1 over the phone. However, no material has been collected to substantiate the allegation of instigation against accused Nos.3 to 5. Even PW1 has not spoken about any specific instance of instigation by accused Nos.3 to 5 to accused No.1.
20. The learned counsel for the appellants has also brought to the notice of this Court that PW9, the father of the deceased, has not made any allegations against accused Nos.3 to 5. Upon considering the material on record, it is evident that except for the statement of PW1 alleging that accused Nos.3 to 5 were instigating accused No.1 over the phone, no evidence has been collected, such as call detail records or any other supporting material.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR
21. Further, it is not in dispute that accused Nos.3 to 5 were already married and living separately. In order to invoke Section 498A as well as Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be cogent material before the Court establishing cruelty or instigation. In the present case, there is no material to show that accused Nos.3 to 5 subjected the deceased to either mental or physical cruelty.
22. In the absence of substantive evidence against accused Nos.3 to 5, we are of the considered view that the trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record and in convicting them. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative, holding that the trial Court erred in convicting accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Reg. Point No.2
23. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 committed the murder by using a sickle. The medical evidence given by the doctor clearly shows that the deceased sustained 13 injuries. The Post-Mortem report (Ex.P6) clearly
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR discloses the nature of the injuries. The doctor was examined as PW11, and even during the course of cross-examination, it was suggested that the death might have occurred between 05:30 a.m. and 06:30 a.m. In such circumstances, there is no dispute with regard to the time of death.
24. Now, coming to the role of accused No.1. The evidence of PWs.5 and 6 clearly indicates that the accused was seen proceeding from the house with a sickle, and they have also deposed that he threw the same into a bush. It is not in dispute that the said sickle was recovered from the bush, and PW4 has categorically deposed regarding the recovery. There is no effective cross-examination on this aspect. Only a single line of cross-examination was made with regard to the recovery. The only suggestion put to PW4 was that MO9 and MO10 belong to accused No.1 and even the seizure of MO1 (the sickle), which has already been marked, has not been disputed. In such circumstances, there is no dispute with regard to the seizure.
25. The other witnesses are PW2 and PW3. PW2 did not support the case and was partly cross-examined by the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR learned Public Prosecutor with regard to Ex.P2 treating as hostile. However, the evidence of PW3 is very clear. He has categorically deposed that the mahazar, Ex.P2, was drawn and that MO1 to MO4 were seized under the said mahazar. His evidence has not been disputed and he has not been cross- examined on this aspect. Therefore, the recovery of MO1 to MO4 stands proved by the prosecution.
26. The other evidence before the Court pertains to the seizure of the clothes of the accused, namely the shirt and baniyan, which are marked as MO9 and MO10. The Investigating Officer has spoken about the seizure of these articles. The FSL report has been marked as Ex.P20 by invoking Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. The report clearly states that MO9 and MO10 were found to contain extensive bloodstains, and the method of analysis is also detailed in Ex.P20. The opinion of the FSL is clear that blood was detected, particularly on MO9 and MO10 belonging to the accused cloth. When such being the case, the document having been marked on 18.06.2018 was not disputed by the defence at the time of marking. Further, there is no explanation offered by the accused
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR regarding the presence of bloodstains on his clothes. He ought to have provided an explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but no such explanation has been given.
27. The incident took place inside the house of the accused. The accused has not offered any explanation as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, though he was bound to explain the circumstances, as the occurrence was within his exclusive knowledge. The incident occurred in the early morning between 05:30 a.m. and 06:00 a.m., at an odd hour, and therefore there was no possibility of any third person entering the house.
28. The bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased as well as on MO9 and MO10 (the clothes of the accused) were of human origin and belonged to blood group 'B'. The evidence of PW5 and PW6 clearly establishes that they last seen the accused coming out of the house. No doubt, the learned counsel for the accused would vehemently contend that the place of recovery of the sickle was at a distance of half a kilometre. However, PW5 and PW6 have categorically deposed before the Court that the accused went carrying the sickle, and
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR the said sickle was found to be bloodstained. The distance of half a kilometre is not significant in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the cross-examination of PW5 and PW6, nothing has been elicited to discredit or disbelieve their evidence. It is also important to note that in the cross-examination of these two witnesses, nothing has been elicited to show that there was any enmity between them and the accused or that they were falsely deposing against him.
29. Having considered all the materials available on record, namely the evidence of PW1, PW9, PW5 and PW6, the medical evidence of PW11, the recovery witnesses, the evidence of PW3 with regard to the seizure of the articles at the spot under Ex.P2, and the evidence of PW4 regarding the recovery of the sickle at the instance of the accused from the bush, it is clear that the prosecution case stands proved. The evidence of PW4 has not been disputed. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 has also not been challenged by the defence.
30. Further, the time of occurrence suggested by the defence itself, namely between 05:30 a.m. and 06:00 a.m., goes against the accused. On an overall consideration of all
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR these materials on record, the role of accused No.1 has been clearly established by the prosecution witnesses, and it is evident that accused No.1 alone committed the murder of his wife.
31. With regard to the offence under Section 498A IPC, no witness has spoken about the accused subjecting the deceased to mental cruelty or assault on any prior occasion. In such circumstances, the trial Court failed to take note of this material aspect and committed an error in invoking Section 498A IPC. There must be positive and cogent evidence before the Court to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A.
32. However, there is no discussion in the judgment regarding the basis for invoking Section 498A, nor is there any evidence on record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The material on record indicates that the accused and the deceased lived together, along with the parents of the accused, for about 10 years. There are no allegations of cruelty during the period of marriage from 2005 to 2015, except for the present incident of murder. Therefore,
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Consequently, accused No.1 is entitled for acquittal for the said offence, and the point is answered accordingly.
33. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Crl.A.No.263/2021 filed by the appellant/accused No.1 is allowed-in-part. The judgment and order dated 18.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w S.C.No.156/2016 by learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is modified.
2. Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. However, the offence punishable under Section 302 is confirmed.
3. Crl.A. No.1345/2018 is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos.3 to 5 are hereby set aside, and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
4. Bail bond executed by accused Nos.3 to 5, if any, stand cancelled.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB CRL.A No. 263 of 2021 C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018 HC-KAR
5. If any fine amount has been deposited by accused Nos.3 to 5, the same shall be refunded to them on proper identification.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11