Karnataka High Court
Shrishail S/O Nagappa Avarasang vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB
CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100292 OF 2023 (C)
BETWEEN:
SHRISHAIL S/O NAGAPPA AVARASANG
AGE 61 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. HONNIHAL VILLAGE,
BILAGI TALUK, DIST. BAGALKOT 587116.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PSI BILAGI POLICE STATION,
DIST BAGALKOT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX, DHARWAD 580011.
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.03.10
14:51:45 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN SC NO.01/2017 AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2023 AND SENTENCE DATED
27.03.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF
IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB
CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent / State.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.03.2023 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote (for short, 'Trial Court') in S.C. No. 1/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution is that the accused and deceased Mahantesh are the close relatives. The deceased Mahantesh had taken the land of brother of the accused by name Basavaraj for cultivation of crop share basis. The accused was not happy for the same. One day, the accused tried to kill Mahantesh by dropping a stone on him while he was sleeping in the farmhouse. Thereafter, the accused had left the village for about six months. Thereafter, he returned to the -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR village. The accused and deceased were consuming alcohol together and particularly on 19.08.2016 at 10.30 p.m., the accused and the deceased Mahantesh went to the house of Mahantesh and Mahantesh had requested his sister to serve food to both of them. While she was serving the food, the grandmother of the Mahantesh, Smt. Gouravva, asked the accused to leave the house at the earliest after having the dinner. The accused felt insulted for the same and went to his house without taking the meal and closed the door of his house. Having noticed the same, the Mahantesh followed him and knocked the door and repeatedly, requested him to come and have the food. After sometime, the accused suddenly opened the door of his house and slit the neck of the Mahantesh with knife. The deceased consequently fell down and blood started oozing profusely from the neck. Thereafter, the deceased Mahantesh was shifted to Government Hospital, Bilagi. On examining the Mahantesh, the doctor declared him as brought dead. The uncle of the deceased by name Girimallappa Avarasang has filed the complaint in this regard. On the basis of the same, the Police registered the case in Crime No.166/2016 and FIR was also registered. Thereafter, conducted the inquest panchanama over -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR the dead body in presence of mahazar witnesses. He also visited the place of incident and conducted the spot panchanama and seized old newspaper containing blood stains and also collected the blood clots fallen on the floor and also taken the photographs. He prepared rough sketch of the place of incident. Thereafter, recorded the statements of eyewitnesses and also other witnesses. The accused was arrested at about 02.15 p.m. and he was produced before the investigation officer as directed. The investigation officer has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. Thereafter, the accused taken him to his house and produced the knife in the presence of panchas and mahazar was drawn by seizing the same. Thereafter, the accused was subjected to medical examination and collected the samples of blood. He seized the clothes of the accused by drawing a mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses and thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. The investigation officer sent a requisition to PWD authorities for preparing the sketch of the place of incident. Thereafter, collected the post mortem report and also having completed the investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. On filing of the charge sheet, the accused was produced before the Court and the trial judge framed the charge. The accused did not admit the guilt and claims trial and hence, prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW.1 to PW.11 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P28, seized the properties i.e., articles as M.O.1 to M.O.10. The accused was also subjected to statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. after the completion of the evidence of the prosecution. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence against him but did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial judge having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Believing the evidence of PW.1, PW.5, PW.6 and PW.8, who are all the eye witnesses to the incident, the trial Court taken note of recovery and also the recovery witness PW.3 and the evidence of the investigating officer so also taken note of FSL report. Wherein, a positive report was submitted that the knife as well as clothes of the accused was stained with human blood, i.e. the blood of the deceased, i.e., 'A' -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR group. The appellant being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence filed the present appeal before this Court.
5. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that the trial judge has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. The trial judge fails to take note of the fact that incident was taken place at 10.30 p.m., and complaint came to be filed on the very next day at 06.45 a.m. and delay is by the complainant side to concoct the story and involve the innocent person in the crime. The delay caused is fatal to the case of prosecution. The counsel also vehemently contend that even if the entire evidence on record is taken together, there is no motive to commit the crime and motive assigned to the accused for commission of murder of Mahantesh, except the oral testimony that on the earlier occasion, the accused tried to murder Mahantesh, but no other material is available on record and no such motive is proved.
6. The counsel also submits that the fact that both the deceased Mahantesh and accused were found moving together, partying together, having lunch and dinner together, there was no any ill-will between both of them. If such ill-will was in -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR existence, question of taking the food and consuming the alcohol together does not arise. Further, the counsel would submit that the evidence of complainant PW.1 and evidence of eyewitness PW.6 and PW.8 and panch witnesses PW.2 and PW.4 are inconsistent with each other to the extent of falsifying the story of the prosecution. This clearly indicates concocting the story and falsely implicated the accused in the alleged incident. The Sessions Judge utterly failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly, contradictory statement made by each of the eyewitnesses.
7. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the argument was canvassed before the trial Court that it is a case for invoking of offence under Section 304 Part II and not under Section 302 of IPC as none of the ingredients of the Section 302 of IPC are attracted in the case on hand. The counsel would vehemently contend that Exception. 1 of Section 300 IPC comes to the aid of the accused and the same has not been considered in a proper perspective by the trial judge. In support of his arguments, the counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KAILASH V/S. STATE OF -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR M.P.1 and counsel brought to notice of this Court, invoking of 302 Part II, applicability of relevance of intention of accused inflicting a single blow by the blunt side of an axe on the head of the victim on a sudden provocation and without any premeditation injury within a short period resulting in death of the victim and injury received by co-accused not explained by prosecution. In such circumstances, the Apex Court comes to the conclusion that right of private defence although not established Section 304 Part II and not Section 302 and attracted. Hence, sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment was awarded.
8. The counsel also relying upon the judgment in the case of MADANLAL V/S. STATE OF PUNJAB2 and by referring this judgment, counsel would vehemently contend that in the case on hand also when the insult was made on the accused and he left the place, but subsequently when the deceased tried to pester the accused and at that time, he inflicted the injury, but not with any intention to take away his life, only to avoid the said situation and counsel would submits that subsequent 1 (2006) 11 SCC 420 2 1992 Supp (2) SCC 233 -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR conduct shows that he did not intend to cause death of the deceased only to disappear the evidence he had stored the knife but it was a case of accidental injury and also when such material is available before this Court, it comes within the purview of sudden and severe provocation with the knowledge that such injuries were likely to cause death. The counsel referring the factual aspects of the case, referring this judgment, would contend that it is a fit case which comes within the purview of Exception. 1 of Section 300 IPC.
9. The counsel in support of his argument also relies upon judgment in the case of RAMESH KUMAR ALIAS TONI VS. STATE OF HARYANA3 and brought to notice of this Court, discussion made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to Section 302 or Section 304 Part I, Exception to Section 300 of IPC, wherein it is held that the prosecution evidence itself spells out that all conditions of Exception No.4 to Section 300 IPC are satisfied then the conviction should be under Section 304 Part I. The counsel in support of his argument would also submit that the very framing of charge itself suggests that it is not a case for 3 (2009) 13 SCC 401
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR 302 IPC but it is a case of invoking of 304 Part I of IPC. Hence, he prays this Court to acquit the accused and in case, if this Court finds that it is not a case for acquittal, then, bring the case within the purview of 300 of IPC i.e., exception-1.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the defence has not disputed the incident. Even during the course of cross examination of eyewitnesses PW1, 5, 6 and 8 suggestions are made and got elicited answer in respect of the incident is concerned but only defence was taken that it was accidental incident and not inflicting the injury by the accused. The same was considered by the trial Court and held that it is not an accidental injury. The eyewitnesses have categorically deposed that the accused has inflicted injury with knife on the vital part of the body. The trial Judge considering the material on record rightly comes to the conclusion that it is a case which falls u/S 302 of IPC.
11. The counsel would further submit that the very fact that both the accused and the deceased were consuming alcohol together and taking food together is not denied. When the grandmother came and made statement does not amount to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR provocation by the accused and the same is only a word that is uttered by the grandmother. The counsel also would submit that there was no quarrel at the spot. The grandmother of the deceased uttered the word against the deceased to finish the food early and leave the house. The counsel vehemently contends that the accused opened the door and came with a knife and inflicted injury that too on the vital part, i.e. neck, and there was no sudden provocation. Even though it is a single blow it was enough to take the life of the person when the injury was on the vital part. These materials clearly disclose that before reaching the hospital the victim died. The Doctor also opined that the victim was brought dead. The Doctor also opined that death is homicidal. Taking note of all these factors the trial Court rightly convicted the accused u/S 302 of IPC.
12. In reply to this, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was no preparation and premeditation. It was a single blow given by the accused. When the grandmother came and uttered word against him, the accused was insulted and also the accused was also not in a position to
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR understand the situation and loss of self control, the incident was taken place.
13. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, the counsel for the respondent and the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, the following points would arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence u/S 302 of IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and whether it requires interference by this Court?
(ii) Whether the trial Court committed an error in not bringing the case within the purview of Sec. 304 (I) or (II) of IPC and whether it requires interference by this Court?
(iii) What order? Points No.1 and 2:
14. Having heard the respective counsel and also the grounds which are urged in the appeal memo we have taken note of both oral and documentary evidence available on record and consciously applied our judicious mind whether it is a case of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR Sec. 302 of IPC or a case for bringing 304 (I) or (II) of IPC or for acquittal.
15. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence, the case rests upon direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. There is no dispute with regard to nature of injuries sustained by the deceased Mahantesh. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of the Doctor PW7. He categorically deposed that he conducted postmortem between 09.30 to 11.30 p.m. He noticed the injury on the left side lower part of the neck, 1 cm above the medial end of clavicular bone, which is directed backward medially and downwards measuring 2½x1 inch size which is major vessel depth. There is tear in left carotid arteries and jugular vessel. It is also his evidence that cause of death is due to trauma by sharp knife and causing injuries to major vessels leading to severe hemorrhage, shock and death. The Doctor gave postmortem report in terms of Ex.P.13. He opined that having received FSL report from the investigating officer he came to the conclusion that cause of death is as mentioned in the postmortem report. Final opinion is given in terms of Ex.P.15.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR
16. In the cross examination of PW7 it is elicited that the above injury could not be caused if a person suddenly came in contact with sharp edged knife; lacerated wound, incised wound and stab wound are different in nature. He deposed that stab wound would be caused by assaulting with pointed substance like knife and dagger-MO2. When the suggestion was made that the said injury could not be caused by assault with MO2, the same was denied.
17. Taking note of the answer elicited from the mouth of PW7 both in the chief and cross examination when the specific defence was taken that if a person falls on the sharp edged weapon like MO2 the above said injury would be caused, but the said question is denied by the Doctor. The Doctor taking note of the injury particularly pointed out that the width of the middle of the blade of knife is approximately ½ cm, the width decreases towards the pointed side of the knife and particularly the cause of death is deposed that it is due to trauma by sharp knife and causing injuries to major vessels leading to severe hemorrhage, shock and death. Admittedly when the deceased was taken to the hospital, he was declared 'brought dead'.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR
18. When such being the case we do not find any error on the part of the Doctor opining that the death is homicidal. When suggestion was made that if any person came in contact with an object like MO2 the death will not be taken, the same is denied and PW7 categorically deposed that sharp edged weapon can cause injury. Such a suggestion was also made to PW2 and got elicited the answer. When such being the case, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in concluding that the death is homicidal.
19. Now coming to the case of the prosecution that the prosecution mainly relies on the direct evidence, PW1 is the uncle of the deceased who deposed before the Court with regard to the earlier attempt made by the accused to take away the life of the deceased. He also speaks about both the accused and deceased were consuming alcohol. Accused was addicted to bad vices of consuming alcohol. On the particular date both of them consumed alcohol. PW5 was serving the food to both of them. At that time the grandmother of the deceased came and instructed the deceased to send the accused after taking food. Being insulted with the said words the accused went to his house
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR and closed the door. Immediately the deceased went and knocked the door. At that time the accused came out with a knife and inflicted injury. Immediately injured was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries.
20. PW1 also deposed about lodging of complaint Ex.P.1 and also conducted spot mahazar, Photos were taken as per Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and P.4 during the seizure of the articles at the spot. The other witness PW5 is the daughter of PW1. She also says about the ill will between the accused and the deceased. When the earlier attempt was made, the accused left the village for 5-6 months. Thereafter he came back. PW5 also reiterates the incident at 10.30 p.m. on 19.08.2016 in the house of the deceased when she was providing food to both the accused and the deceased. With regard to the grandmother of deceased came and uttered the word was also reiterated by her and also the other circumstances of inflicting injury.
21. PW6 is also an eyewitness. In his evidence PW6 deposed that deceased was cultivating the land belonging to the brother of the accused. He further deposed about the attempt made by accused to take away the life of the deceased by
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR dumping a stone, the accused leaving the village for 5-6 months and thereafter the accused came back. PW6 reiterated the evidence of PW1 and PW5 with regard to the incident.
22. The other witness PW8 who is also an eyewitness in his evidence also deposed that accused was residing alone, his wife and children left the accused. PW8 deposed that he came to know about the earlier attempt made by the accused to take away the life of the deceased. In his evidence PW8 says that when he heard galata sound he went and witnessed the incident, i.e. the second incident of inflicting injury with knife, as a result, blood was oozing. He reiterated the evidence of PW1, 5 and 6. In the cross examination PW8 says that next day accused was arrested, he was not aware as to whether the accused was there immediately after the accident and he even not seen the accused. When suggestion was made that he did not witness the incident the same was denied. Total denial was made in the cross examination.
23. Now this Court has to consider the evidence of PW1, 5, 6 and 8. No doubt the counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that PW6 in the cross examination
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR admitted that he came to the spot after inflicting of injury but having considered the evidence given by PW1, 5 and 8 is very clear that all of them have spoken about the inflicting of injury. But during the course of cross examination of these witnesses suggestion was made that the incident was taken place in the house of the deceased, that the grandmother of the deceased also came and uttered word to leave the place immediately taking the food and he is such a character of person and the accused left the place before taking the food is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that immediately the deceased went to the house of the accused and requested the accused to come and have food and he knocked the door 3-4 times, then the accused opened the door and caused the incident. The evidence of these eyewitnesses is consistent with regard to inflicting injury on the neck and as a result blood was oozing.
24. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it was an accidental injury, that the accused opened the door when the deceased knocking the door, the deceased suddenly fell down and the knife-M.O.2 came in contact with the deceased and thereby he sustained injury. The said suggestion
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR was denied by these eyewitnesses. Hence the same cannot be accepted. The trial Court rightly considered the evidence of PW1, 5, 6 and 8 and though there is an admission on the part of PW6 that he came to know about the incident that deceased sustained injury and died, but the evidence of PW1, 5 and 8 is very clear. No doubt PW1 and PW5 both are related witnesses of the deceased but the same cannot be a ground to come to other conclusion that they are the interested witnesses.
25. It is trite law that the related and interested witnesses cannot be discarded if their evidence is consistent and reliable. When such being the material available before the Court, we do not find any ground to come to a conclusion that accused only not committed the murder of the deceased. The evidence on record, particularly the direct evidence of eyewitnesses, PW1, 5, 6 and 8, point out the role of the accused.
26. Now coming to the aspect of the recovery at the instance of the accused, i.e. knife, which is marked as MO2 and mahazar was also drawn in terms of Ex.P.7. The I.O. PW10 speaks about the recovery at the instance of the accused. PW3 also categorically deposed before the Court that when the
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR accused led panch witnesses and also the Police, he was very much present at the time of seizing of knife and the same also stained with blood, and cloth of the accused were also seized.
27. In the cross examination of PW3 except the suggestion with regard to the seizure is concerned, nothing is elicited. He categorically contends that all of them went in jeep to Honnihal village and the accused was also very much present. The same is got elicited from the mouth of PW3. During the course of cross examination even he categorically deposed that accused himself opened the door of his house when all of them went to the house. PW3 deposed that he also accompanied Police along with the accused. When the suggestion was made that he was in the jeep when the Police went inside the house of the accused, the same was denied. His evidence is very clear that accused took out knife from a bag and produced. When the suggestion was made that there was no knife, it was denied. When such consistent evidence is given by PW3 it is clear that it was made at the instance of the accused and the same is spoken by I.O. PW.10.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR
28. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P.19. Having perused the RFSL report, except items No. 1 and 8 news paper piece as well as nails, the examination is inconclusive since blood grouping and blood stains in 1 and 8 could not be determined as the results of the test were inconclusive, all the other articles, i.e., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are stained with human blood with 'A' group. All the articles, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are noted presence of mud. When such report is also positive, i.e., PW19 report is very clear that all the articles are stained with blood.
29. Having regard to both oral and documentary evidence available on record, point out the very role of the accused in committing murder, the trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence as well as RFSL report rightly come to the conclusion that the accused only has committed murder.
30. Now coming to the aspect of the very argument of the counsel for the appellant that it will not attract Sec. 302 IPC and would attract Sec. 304 IPC particularly it comes within the exception (I).
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR
31. This Court has taken note of the very exception (I) of Sec. 300 IPC. It is very clear that when 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 grave and sudden provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
32. Having perused the same it is clear that if any act is done with regard to grave and sudden provocation who lost self control and that too caused the death of a person who gave provocation but in the case on hand no such provocation was given by the accused at the first instance and at that time only the grandmother came and uttered word against him to take food and leave the house immediately. But the counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that even though the deceased has not given any provocation at the spot when the first incident was taken but he went and continuously knocked the door of the accused asking him to come out from the house and take food. Hence the accused came with a knife but not having any intention and it was an accidental death. The same cannot be accepted. It is very clear that there was no
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR provocation at the instance of the deceased. Even the deceased also not abused against the accused but only he requested to come and have food. It does not amount to grave or sudden provocation leading him to take knife and inflict injury on the vital part.
33. The evidence of the Doctor PW7 is very clear that main blood vessel was cut as a result blood was oozing and he died even before taking to the hospital. When such being the case, the contention of the counsel that there was a sudden provocation and there was no preparation cannot be accepted. If there was no preparation, why the accused came with the knife is not explained in the statement of the accused recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C. Though it is stated that it was an accidental incident but the material discloses that there was no such accidental incident even though there was a single blow. The same will not come to the aid of the accused that there was no intention or pre-meditation but he came with the knife and inflicted injury on the vital part of the body, i.e. neck. The evidence of the Doctor PW7 is very clear that same is enough to cause death. As such,
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR we do not find force in the contentions of the counsel for the appellant.
34. No doubt, the principles laid down in Kailash Vs. State of M.P., Madanlal Vs. State of Punjab and Ramesh Kumar alias Toni Vs. State of Haryana referred supra, all these facts and circumstances will not come to the aid of the prosecution. In the case on hand there was no sudden provocation at the first instance and also the deceased has not uttered any words against the accused and only grandmother came and instructed the accused to take food and leave the house early. Thus it is clear that even at the time of assault there was no such provocation. Mere requesting the accused to come and have food does not mean that it is a sudden provocation. Hence, these judgments will not come to the aid of the counsel to come to a conclusion that it was a case within purview of exception (I) of Sec. 300 IPC.
35. We are of the considered opinion that it is not a case to bring the case within the exception of Sec. 300 IPC as contended. Hence we answered both the points in the negative.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3598-DB CRL.A No. 100292 of 2023 HC-KAR
36. In view of the discussion made above, we pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE RKM & BVV CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8