Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Vithal Tippanna Bijjannavar on 27 May, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7020-DB
CRL.A No. 100468 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100468 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE
CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
MUDHOL, MUDHOL POLICE STATION,
BAGALKOT I DISTRICT, THROUGH
THE ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND:
1. VITHAL TIPPANNA BIJJANNAVAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIPPALAKATTI, RAMADURGA TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591130.
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH 2. MALLAPPA IRAPPA (NANDI)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.05.30
R/O: CHIPPALAKATTI, RAMADURGA TALUK,
13:09:08 +0530 BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.M.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27/04/2019 PASSED
BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT
AT JAMKHANDI IN S.C.NO.34/2018 AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27/04/2019 PASSED
BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT
AT JAMKHANDI IN S.C.NO.34/2018 AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SECS.302 AND 201 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7020-DB
CRL.A No. 100468 of 2019
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the State against the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court,
whereby the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 have been
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard and perused the evidence and material on
record.
3. It is the case of prosecution that accused No.1 was
having an illicit relationship with deceased Mainaaz wife of
Maktumsab(PW.5) and since three years they were
residing at Chippalakatti village in a sheeted shed situated
in the land of Laxmappa Bijjannavar(PW.9). As the
deceased was objecting for the marriage of accused No.1
with a girl, on 06.04.2017 at about 9.30 p.m., when the
accused No.1 was talking with the deceased, in front of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7020-DB
the shed, accused No.2 kicked on her chest and when she
fell down, both the accused with an intention to take away
her life, strangulated her with the pallu of her saree and
committed her murder. Thereafter, in order to cause
disappearance of the evidence, both the accused put the
dead body in a gunny bag and shifted it in the motor cycle
and dumped in Ghataprabha river shore in Mantur village.
4. In order to establish the guilt of the accused,
prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and got marked
27 documents and material objects 1 to 12. Defence of the
accused was one of total denial, however, they did not
choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf.
5. The learned trial judge having appreciated the oral
and documentary evidence on record found insufficient
evidence to convict the accused persons and acquitted
them of the charged offences holding that prosecution has
failed to prove that the accused have committed the
murder of Mainaaz and destroyed the evidence by
dumping the dead body by the side of GLBC canal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7020-DB
6. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned Addl.
SPP Sri.M.B.Gundawade vehemently contended that the
prosecution has been able to prove the illicit relationship
between the deceased and accused No.1 and the fact that
they were living together in the shed belonging to CW.20
namely Laxmappa Bijjanavar, examined as PW.9, situated
at Chippalakatti village and further PW.8 has categorically
deposed about the panchayath having been convened with
regard to the said illicit relationship. He contended that the
said PW.8 has also spoken about the motive for the
accused to commit the offence. He has therefore
contended that the homicidal death and the deceased and
accused No.1 living together having been established, in
the absence of any explanation by the accused, the trial
court was not justified in acquitting the accused. He
contended that the reasons assigned by the trial court for
acquitting the accused are not just and proper and
accordingly prayed to set aside the impugned judgment
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7020-DB
and order and convict the accused-respondents, for the
charged offences.
7. We have carefully examined the entire evidence and
material on record.
8. In this case, the prosecution has examined PW.12,
the doctor who conducted autopsy to establish that the
death was homicidal in nature. Ex.P.15 is the postmortem
report and Ex.P.16 is the final opinion furnished by PW.12,
as per which the death is due to ligature strangulation.
The postmortem report would reveal that the deceased
sustained multiple contusions. In view of the medical
evidence, there is no hesitation to hold that death of
deceased Mainaaz is homicidal in nature. However,
prosecution has to establish the charges leveled against
the accused-respondents that they committed the murder
by strangulating the deceased with the help of pallu of her
saree and dumped the dead body in the Ghataprabha river
shore in GLBC canal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7020-DB
9. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the
deceased was married to PW.5-Maktumsab. Accused No.1
was having an illicit relationship with the deceased and
therefore, she deserted her husband and started living
with accused No.1 in a shed belonging to PW.9. PW.5 has
deposed about the illicit relationship between the deceased
and accused No.1. He has stated that two years prior to
the incident his wife left his company and went to
Ramdurga along with their children. Thereafter, he went to
Ramdurga and brought his children back and divorced his
wife. He has further deposed that accused No.1 and
deceased were staying in the shed situated in the land of
one Laxmappa Bijjannavar (PW.9). Similarly, PW.6 namely
the father of PW.5 has deposed about the illicit
relationship between the deceased and accused No.1 and
both of them staying in the shed belonging to PW.9.
However, it is relevant to note that none of the witnesses
have stated that immediately prior to the deceased was
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7020-DB
found dead, she was seen in the company of the accused
persons. Though PW.6 has deposed about the motive for
the accused persons to commit the murder stating that the
deceased was objecting accused No.1 to marry another
girl and therefore she was murdered, but the same
appears to be a hearsay evidence and as deposed by him,
he was informed about the same by the police. PW.5 has
however not deposed regarding the said motive for the
accused persons to commit the murder. Even otherwise
insofar as accused No.2 is concerned, there is absolutely
no evidence adduced by the prosecution.
10. The dead body was found lying at the shore of GLBC
canal on 07.04.2017. PW.1 namely the police constable on
receiving the information by a villager, went to the spot
and after noticing the dead body with injuries, lodged a
complaint as per EX.P1 which was registered by the Police
Sub-Inspector-PW.13.
11. The prosecution got examined PW.9 to establish the
fact that deceased and accused No.1 were living together
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7020-DB
in a shed belonging to him located in his land. The said
witness has completely turned hostile and denied the
version of prosecution. The prosecution has also got
examined PW.11 to establish that the accused were seen
carrying the dead body on a motorcycle after committing
the murder. However, the said witness has also turned
hostile. PW.10 examined by the prosecution to establish
the illicit relationship between accused No.1 and deceased
and both of them living in a shed, has also turned hostile.
Hence, the evidence of these witnesses does not come to
the aid of prosecution. Initial burden is on the prosecution
to establish the charges leveled by adducing cogent and
acceptable evidence. However, we find that no sufficient
and convincing evidence is on record so as to reverse an
order of acquittal.
12. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence and
material on record, we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubts. No grounds are made out to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7020-DB
interfere with the impugned judgment. Appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
