Karnataka High Court

Siddappa S/O Ramappa Anjutagi vs The State on 14 August, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                             -1-
                                                      NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB
                                                   CRL.A No. 200038 of 2017


                   HC-KAR




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                    KALABURAGI BENCH

                      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                         PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                                            AND
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF


                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200038 OF 2017
                                   (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)

                   BETWEEN

                   SIDDAPPA
                   S/O. RAMAPPA ANJUTAGI
                   AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
                   R/O. CHIK RUGI, TQ: SINDAGI
                   DIST: VIJAYPUR.
                                                               ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
                   (BY SRI. K A KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          AND

                   THE STATE THROUGH,
                   BABALESHWAR POLICE STATION,
                   VIJAYAPUR.
                   REPT. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                   KALABURAGI.
                                                              ...RESPONDENT

                   (BY SRI.SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR RESPONDENT)
                               -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB
                                    CRL.A No. 200038 of 2017


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN
SESSIONS CASE NO.08/16 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SESSION JUDGE, VIJAYPUR
FOR CONVICTING THE APPELLANT BY ITS JUDGMENT
DATED:23.01.2017, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   12.08.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
           AND
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF


                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Addl.

SPP for the State.

2. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution before

the Trial Court is that the father of the complainant was

murdered by his son-in-law, since the accused was ill-treating

the daughter of the deceased, both physically and mentally.

The daughter of the deceased had come back from her

matrimonial home and was staying with her parents at Sarawad

village. It is also the case of the prosecution that eight days

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

prior to the incident, Beerappa (the deceased) had been

approached by the accused, who had come to Sarawad and was

insisting the deceased to send his daughter (wife of the

accused) back to him. The deceased did not agree for the

same. Hence, taking advantage of the fact that the deceased

was sleeping in front of his house on the road during the

summer season, the accused dropped a stone on his head and

committed his murder. When, the complainant (son of

deceased), woke up to attend nature call, he witnessed the

incident and on screaming, other villagers rushed to the spot.

Hence, a complaint was given and case was registered.

3. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet

against the accused and examined witnesses PWs-1 to 19.

Documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-28 and material

objects at MOs-1 to 14.

4. The Trial Court, taking note of the evidence

available on record, accepted the prosecution theory and

convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC,

imposing life imprisonment and fine. The conviction and

sentence is challenged before this Court in this appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

5. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/accused vehemently contend that, in spite of the

complainant as well as other relative witnesses, and other

independent witnesses turning hostile, the Trial Court

committed an error in accepting their evidence, even though

there was no incriminating material against the accused. It was

further contended that the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses was misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Trial

Court and in the absence of any corroborative piece of

evidence, the accused ought not to have been convicted.

6. It was further argued that the Trial Court only

relied upon the evidence of PW-15, who wrote the complaint

and the complaint, Ex.P-7, but, he submits that only as per the

instructions of PW-3, he wrote the complaint. Counsel also

contended that even the recovery at the instance of the

accused was not proved and the witnesses examined for

recovery have also turned hostile. Therefore, benefit of doubt

ought to have been extended in favour the accused. Hence,

judgment of conviction and sentence requires interference.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

7. Per contra, learned Additional SPP appearing for the

State in his arguments would vehemently contend that even if

relative witnesses have turned hostile, in their cross-

examination it is elicited that the deceased went for sleeping

and also that the accused was seen going towards the

Samudaya Bhavan. It was submitted that the Trial Court rightly

took note of the circumstantial evidence available on record, as

well as the FSL report with regard to the seizure of the blood-

stained clothes of the accused and rightly convicted the

accused. Hence, no interference is required.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned Additional SPP and on perusal of the material

available on record, the points that arise for consideration of

this Court are:

"i. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence invoked against him?

ii. Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence requires interference by this Court?

iii. What order?"

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

9. Having discussed above the factual matrix of the

case, the prosecution mainly relies upon the complaint, which is

marked at Ex.P-7. Based on complaint, FIR was registered in

terms of Ex.P-25. The police, after registration of the case,

conducted the Inquest Panchanama in terms of Ex.P-1. The

Cloth Seizure Panchanama was drawn in terms of Ex.P-2. The

prosecution also relies upon photographs, Exs.P-3 and P-4

(Photographs) and also the Spot Panchanama, Ex.P-5 and

photographs, Exs.P-6 and P-8. The prosecution also relies on

the post-mortem report, Ex.P-16, and the final report, Ex.P-17,

and sketch map, marked as Ex.P-18. The clothes of the

accused were seized at the instance of the accused, and the

seizure mahazar is marked as Ex.P-19 and photograph is

marked as Ex.P-20. The main documents are the FSL reports,

Ex.P-23 and P-24, in respect of clothes of the deceased as well

as the accused. Voluntary statement of the accused marked at

Ex.P-28 is also relied upon.

10. Having perused the material available on record,

the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The

prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19, no doubt Ex.P-7 contains a

specific allegation that the accused was not treating his wife

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

properly and she was subjected to both mental and physical

cruelty. As a result, she went back to her parental house. It is

also stated in the complaint that, eight days prior to the

incident, the accused came to their village and insisted his

father-in-law to send his wife back. His father-in-law did not

agree and hence, he had a motive to commit the murder and

committed the murder.

11. However, the fact remains that the complainant,

who gave the complaint and who has been examined as PW-3

before the Trial Court, completely turned hostile. He made a

statement before the Court on oath that he was not aware of

the contents of the document, Ex.P-7. However, he reiterated

that his father was sleeping on the road in front of their house,

but he says that on the next day, at about 5:00 a.m., when he

came out of his house to attend nature call, he saw his father's

dead body, as blood was oozing and one big stone was lying

near him. But, he did not support the case of the prosecution

that he witnessed the incident and he was cross-examined. In

the cross-examination, he admits that his father, after taking

meals, was sleeping on the cement road in front of their house.

He also admits that on that day, the accused went to the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

Samuday Bhavan to sleep there. But, the suggestion that he

witnessed the accused dropping stone on his father was

categorically denied.

12. Another witness, PW-6, who is the wife of the

accused and daughter of deceased, has also categorically

stated that she has not complained anything against her

husband and she stated that she was visiting their house on

festival occasions and turned hostile. Similar answers were

elicited from PW-5 and the wife of the deceased, who also did

not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW-6,

who is the daughter of the deceased and the wife of the

accused, also did not support the case of the prosecution. Also

another son and daughter-in-law, examined as PWs-7 and 8, so

also other daughter-in-law, examined as PW-10, did not

support the case of the prosecution. PW-9 is also a son of the

deceased and he has also not supported the case of the

prosecution. PWs-11 and 12, also turned hostile. The main

witness for seizer of clothes of accused at the instance of

accused is PW-4 and he also did not support the case of the

prosecution, but admitted in the cross-examination that seizer

Panchanama contains his signature, except admitting

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

photograph of Ex.P-20 and deposing that in the said

photograph, the accused was handing over something to the

police officer, but he categorically says that he is not in a

position to identify, as to what exactly was handed over. In

further cross-examination, also when a suggestion was made

by the learned Public Prosecutor that blood stained clothes

belongs to the accused i.e., Dhoti, Nehru shirt and Gandhi topi,

were handed over to the CPI, the same was categorically

denied.

13. The other panch witness, PW-13, who is a witness

to the document Ex.P-19, identifies his signature and also

identifies the photograph Ex.P-20, which depicts that his photo

is visible along with PW-4. But, he says that the said photo was

taken nearby the school in their village. He also admits that in

the said photograph, it is evident that the accused is handing

over something to the police officer, but he says he is not able

to identify what exactly was handed over to the police. When

similar suggestion was made to this witness also that one blue

colour plastic bag containing blood stained white dhoti, Nehru

shirt and Gandhi topi was handed over to the CPI, he denies

the same.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

14. PW-14 also turned hostile. PW-15 is the scribe of

the complaint. No doubt, he supports the case of the

prosecution that he only wrote the complaint, when he was

asked to write the same as narrated by PW-3, and read over

the complaint to him and he identified his signature in Ex.P-7

as Ex.P-7(a). In cross-examination, a suggestion was made

that that Ex.P-7 is not written by him as narrated by PW-3 and

same was denied.

15. The other witness is PW-16, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, who conducted further investigation

in the matter. PW-17 is the PSI, who registered the complaint

based on the complaint Ex.P-7 and issued the FIR. PW-18, is

the CPC, and he also speaks about registering the FIR.

Accordingly, he delivered the FIR to the Court. The other

witness PW-19, CPI, had seized the clothes by drawing the

mahazar in terms of Ex.P-28 and MOs.11 to 14 and also taking

of photographs while seizing the clothes of accused in terms of

Exs.P-20 and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P-19.

16. Now this Court has to re-appreciate the material

available on record. It is not in dispute that based on the

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

complaint Ex.P-7, FIR was registered in terms of Ex.P-25. It is

also not in dispute that mahazars were drawn i.e. Inquest

Panchanama, Cloth Seizure Panchanama and Spot Panchanama

were done in terms of Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-5. But all the

witnesses have turned hostile, including the mahazar

witnesses, seizure of clothes witnesses, and even the relative

witnesses of the deceased, PW-3, PW-5 to PW-10 i.e. three

sons and two daughters-in-law, the wife and the daughter.

17. The material discloses that on account of

relationship strained between the accused and PW-6 (daughter

of deceased), the incident took place. None of the witnesses

have supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court

mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-15, who is the scribe of

the complaint. The complaint is marked as Ex.P-7, and PW-15

says that he prepared the complaint on the instructions of PW-

3. But PW-3, who is the complainant and son of the deceased,

has completely turned hostile and stated that he has not stated

anything to prepare the complaint.

18. No doubt, in the cross-examination of the relative

witnesses, an answer was elicited that the deceased was

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

sleeping in front of the house on the road and also that the

accused went to sleep at the Samudaya Bhavan. But except

these answers elicited from the hostile witnesses, nothing

incriminating evidence brought out that the accused had

assaulted the deceased. Nothing was spoken to by any of the

witnesses, including PW-3, who in the complaint states that he

witnessed the incident at 3:00 a.m., when he woke up to

attend nature's call. But in his evidence, he says that when he

came out at 5:00 a.m., he found the dead body, a stone near

the dead body and there is no other incriminating evidence.

The Trial Court mainly relies upon the document Ex.P7-

complaint. Even though, the complainant also identified his

signature and PW-15, the scribe, supports the case of the

prosecution, the same is not an incriminating piece of evidence

and his only evidence is that he wrote in the complaint as per

narration of PW-3 and PW-3 himself denied the same.

19. It is also important to note that the Trial Court,

while convicting the accused, mainly relied upon the FSL report.

The FSL report is in respect of the seizure of clothes of the

accused at his instance. But, the fact is that seizure witnesses

PWs-4 and 13 have not supported the case of the prosecution

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

for recovery of cloth. They have only identified Ex.P-20

(photograph), stating that something was handed over by the

accused, but they denied knowing exactly what materials were

produced.

20. The Trial Court, in paragraph No. 27, discussed the

evidence available for the prosecution and also took note of

hostile witnesses' evidence, but Trial Court took note of only

admitted portion and the only admission is with regard to the

deceased sleeping in front of the house and that the accused

also went to sleep at the Samudaya Bhavan. Considering the

evidence and the FSL report, in paragraph No.28, it is noted

that Ex.P-23 is not challenged. The same is in respect of the

seizure of the clothes of the deceased.

21. The Court also took note of the evidence of PW-19,

C.P.I., who had effected the seizure of MOs-11 to 14, and out

of them MOs-11 and 12 were forwarded to the FSL through PC.

The Trial Court relied upon the FSL report, particularly with

respect to two items - one dhoti and one Nehru shirt at Ex-P24,

which shows the presence of blood stains on those two articles.

The dhoti and Nehru shirt contained human blood of Group 'A',

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

which is the blood group of deceased. The Trial Court observed

that, now that the seizure of these two items at the instance of

the accused having been established, the fact remains that

human blood stains of Group 'A' were found, and the offence

established. This FSL report was not challenged and in the

absence of any explanation offered by the accused, as to why

there were blood stains of Group 'A' (which was the blood

group of the deceased), there is no scope to draw any other

conclusion, except to hold the accused culprit.

22. However, the Trial Court failed to take note of the

fact that the very seizure of the blood-stained clothes at the

instance of the accused was not proved. Though, the

prosecution examined PWs-4 and 13, the panch witnesses for

the seizure of these items and both of them turned hostile.

When the very seizure was doubtful and not proved and the

witnesses unequivocally turned hostile, particularly in respect of

the seizure of those items, the question of relying upon the FSL

report (Ex. P-24) does not arise. Therefore, the Trial Court's

conclusion that the prosecution was successful in establishing

the charge against the accused as committed offence under

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

Section 300 of IPC and he is punishable offence under Section

302 of IPC is not sustainable.

23. We have re-assessed the material on record and it

is clear that none of the witnesses have supported the case of

the prosecution and only relying upon the evidence of PW-15,

who is the scribe of Ex.P-7 and the FSL reports (Exs.-P23 and

P24) and in the absence of corroboration of the seizure of the

articles and with witnesses particularly PWs-4 and 13 having

turned hostile to seizer of Dhoti, Nehru shirt and Gandhi topi,

the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. There cannot

be a moral conviction solely based on the evidence of the scribe

of Ex.P-15 and the FSL reports. No doubt, police witnesses

have supported the case of the prosecution, but prosecution

has utterly failed to establish the charges leveled against the

accused. Even, the relative witnesses, particularly the wife,

daughter, daughters-in-law, and sons of the deceased, turned

hostile and there is no incriminating evidence and therefore,

the question of explaining the same does not arise. The very

approach of the Trial Court that the accused did not explain the

blood stains, which were found on the clothes of the accused is

erroneous since the very seizure was not proved and unless

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4683-DB

HC-KAR

seizure is proved, the question of relying upon the FSL report,

Ex.P-24, is nothing but a week piece of evidence available

before the Court.

24. The law is settled that prosecution is required to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court ought

to have given benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, since

the prosecution has failed to establish the charges framed

against the accused. Hence, we are of the opinion that Trial

Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the

accused. Hence, the points are answered in the affirmative.

25. In view of discussion made above, we pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed.



      ii)    The judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2017

             and order     of sentence dated 24.01.2017

             passed   by   II    Additional    Sessions   Judge,