Karnataka High Court
Sannappa S/O Yamanappa Pyati vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 August, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
CRL.A No. 200145 of 2016
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.200145 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SANNAPPA
S/O YAMANAPPA PYATI,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
R/O: SHIVPUR,
TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
AGO OFFICE, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL SPP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
CRL.A No. 200145 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED PASSED
IN SC NO.187/2013 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR DATED 27.09.2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ACQUIT THE ACCUSED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
AND HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 31.07.2025,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, MADE 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)
This criminal appeal is filed challenging the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence imposed against the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) passed in Sessions
Case No.187/2013 dated 27.09.2016 by the Court of the
III Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (hereinafter
referred to as, 'Trial Court' for brevity).
2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that
one Rekha D/o Yamanappa had lodged a written complaint
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
on 04.06.2013 before the Talikote Police Station,
Vijayapur making an allegation that on 27.05.2013, the
grandmother of the complainant Basamma and mother of
the accused Lakkavva had quarreled with each other in the
early morning over keeping of firewood in front of house of
Basamma. It is further alleged that the accused who came
to house having received the information from the said
Lakkavva, came near the house of Basamma at about
7.30 p.m. and quarreled with Basamma, lifted her and
threw her twice as a result she has sustained injury to her
waist and other parts of the body and succumbed to the
injuries. It is also stated in the complaint that her sister -
Sujata, her cousin sister Renuka D/o Bhimanna and her
neighbour Mallamma have witnessed this incident.
3. It is further alleged that the accused had
threatened the complainant and her sisters of dire
consequences and being afraid of his threat, they did not
report the same to the police. But conducted funeral of
their grandmother on the next day i.e. 28.05.2013. Based
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
on this complaint, police have registered the crime in
Crime No.98/2013 for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 506 of IPC.
4. The police after investigation filed charge-
sheet. Accused was secured before the Court, he did not
plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the
prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 16 and
also got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P.16(a). On the
other hand, defence also examined one witness as DW.1
and got marked documents as Exs.D1 and D2. The Trial
Court having considered the both oral and documentary
evidence available on record, answered points for
consideration as affirmative and convicted the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506(2) of
IPC. The Trial Court also having heard regarding sentence
ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of `50,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC and further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months, in case of default. The
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
accused also sentenced for the offence punishable under
Section 506 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three years and to pay a fine of `10,000/-, in default to
pay fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three months and both the sentences run concurrently.
The period of detention of the accused in the committal
Court as well as during the trial has been set off against
the terms of sentence of rigorous imprisonment. It is also
directed, out of fine amount, `30,000/- to be paid together
to PW.8 - Bhimanna and PW.9 - Yamanappa, who are the
sons of deceased - Basamma. Being aggrieved by
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present
appeal is filed before this Court.
5. The main contention of learned counsel
appearing for the appellant before this Court is that there
is a delay of eight days in lodging the complaint and no
proper explanation is forthcoming either in the complaint
or in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hence, the
Trial Court ought not to have relied upon the evidence of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
witnesses. It is also the contention that in order to invoke
Section 302 of IPC no ingredients are made out. Injuries
mentioned in the post mortem report do not correspond
with the alleged act committed by the accused and also
the injuries mentioned in the complaint. The counsel also
vehemently contend that Trial court has erred in ignoring
the contradictions in the evidence of PW.9 - Yamanappa,
who is also the father of the complainant that he was
aware of the incident on 27.05.2013 and he had informed
about the same to several persons in the village. The said
admission falsifies the case of the prosecution that
complaint was lodged belatedly because of threat. Though
PW.3 deposed in her complaint that she along with her
sisters (PWs.4 and 5) were present at the time of incident
and PW.2 has also witnessed the incident, but PW.2 did
not support the case of the prosecution. The counsel also
contend that PW.5 deposes that in the evening hours her
grandmother - Basamma and mother of accused Lakkavva
quarreled, thereafter the accused alleged to have
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
committed the said offence. Whereas the case of the
prosecution and also the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 that
incident was taken place in the early morning and
evidence of PWs.3 to 5 are inconsistent, but Trial Court
comes to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs.3 to 5
corroborates each other.
6. The complainant- PW.3 who has been examined
before the Court deposed that accused had also attended
the funeral of the deceased which goes to shows that
theory of threat by the accused is false. The counsel also
contends that the witnesses to the panchanama have not
supported the case of the prosecution and place of incident
and spot of panchanama are not proved. Therefore, the
independent panch witnesses have not supported the case
of the prosecution.
7. The counsel also vehemently contend that Trial
Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of
defence witness, who has been examined as DW.1 before
the Court and he categorically deposes that PW.9 son of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
the deceased had informed that his mother died due to
natural ailment and when such being the case, it is a clear
case of implication. The counsel also vehemently contends
that the evidence of PW.10 - Doctor and post mortem
report Ex.P.8 cannot be believed, since post mortem is
conducted on 06.06.2013 i.e., after about 10 days from
the alleged date of death. The condition of the body as
explained by the Doctor and also the investigation officers
would not give an occasion for the Doctor to identify the
external injuries on a decomposed body, but Trial Court
committed an error in considering the evidence of Doctor
in convicting the accused.
8. The counsel also vehemently contends that
there is no motive or any intention to take away the life of
Basamma and inquest clearly discloses that no injuries are
found. When the medical evidence cannot be relied upon
and also the parents of PWs.3 to 5 have not noticed the
injuries and injuries not correlates with each other, hence
the Trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
favour of the accused, but committed an error in
convicting the accused.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
State i.e., Additional State Public Prosecutor in his
argument would vehemently contend that the evidence of
PWs.3 to 5 is consistent and no contradictions are elicited
from them with regard to incident is concerned and they
are the eyewitnesses to the incident. The counsel also
vehemently contends that medical evidence also supports
the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 and they have categorically
deposed before the Court that the accused lifted their
grandmother and threw her on the ground twice, as a
result, she has sustained injuries. The counsel also would
submit that Ex.P.8 - post mortem report is very clear with
regard to nature of injuries sustained by deceased and
medical evidence as well as the evidence of PW.3 to 5 is
consistent and corroborates each other and rightly
convicted the accused. The counsel would vehemently
contends that when the body was exhumed and inquest
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
was conducted and panch witnesses cannot identify the
external injuries, but only the Doctor who is an expert can
identify and he identified while conducting the post
mortem report that there were injuries and were
antemortem in nature. Hence, the Trial Court has taken
note of medical evidence along with the evidence of PWs.3
to 5. The counsel would also vehemently contend that
there is no ill-will between witnesses and the accused in
order to implicate him in the case and without any prior
enmity, question of implicating the accused does not arise.
The counsel also would vehemently contends that the Trial
Court in detail discussed both oral and documentary
evidence available on record and not committed any error
and it does not require any interference.
10. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the State, this Court has to
reanalyze the material available on record both oral and
documentary evidence and having considered the grounds
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
urged in the appeal, the points that would arise for
consideration of this Court are :
i) Whether the trial Court committed an error
in convicting the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 506(2)
of IPC and whether it requires interference
of this Court in coming to the conclusion
that the prosecution has not proved the
case its beyond reasonable doubt ?
ii) What order ?
11. Having reanalyzed both oral and documentary
evidence and also the factual aspects of the case, it is
clear that deceased Basamma W/o Ningappa Makali, was
aged about 70 years and she was the paternal
grandmother of the complainant - Miss Rekha who had
lodged the complaint. According to the prosecution,
PWs.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are eyewitnesses, but PWs.1 and 2
have not supported the case of the prosecution. The only
evidence available before the Court is PWs.3 to 5, PW.8
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
and PW.9. The other material evidence is PW.10 - Doctor
and so also other official witnesses of police department.
12. The case of prosecution is that the
complainant's father Yamanappa has a younger brother by
name Bhimanna and the house of accused Sannappa is
adjacent to the house of Bhimanna at Shivapur village.
The deceased Basamma was residing with Bhimanna and
the same is not in dispute. It is the case of the prosecution
that there was a galata between Basamma and the mother
of the accused in the early morning of 27.05.2013 in
connection with firewood that was kept near the house of
Smt.Lakkavva, i.e., the mother of the accused. In that
connection, an incident was taken place in the evening.
After coming to know about the same, the accused
Sannappa went near the house of Basamma W/o Ningappa
at 7.30 p.m. picked up quarrel with deceased Basamma
and during the altercation he had lifted the deceased
Basamma, threw her on the ground twice as a result
deceased Basamma sustained injuries. Consequently,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
grandmother of PWs.3 to 5 has died because of injuries
caused to her in the incident.
13. Now this Court has to take note of the evidence
of PW.10-Doctor who had conducted the post mortem
examination, in order to ascertain whether it is a case of
homicidal death or not. PW.10 in his evidence has
categorically deposed that he conducted the post mortem
examination and noticed the following injuries :
i) Contusion over right side just below the breast over
the lateral aspect measuring 12 c.m. x 7 c.m.
ii) Contusion over back of chest in center measuring
12 c.m. x 9 c.m.
iii) Contusion over right side of thigh over the medial
aspect measuring 6 c.m. x 5 c.m.
and also the evidence of the Doctor reveals that time since
death was 11-12 days prior to post mortem examination,
but all the injuries were antemortem in nature. Death was
due to injury to the lung and issued the post mortem
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
report in terms of Ex.P.8. In the cross-examination, it is
elicited that he was present when the dead body was
exhumed. The suggestion was made that if the materials
used for digging come in contact with the dead body, while
exhuming the grave the like injuries mentioned in Ex.P.8 -
post mortem may cause and same was categorically
denied. It is suggested that the contusion injuries
mentioned in Ex.P.8 were not present on the dead body
and same was also denied. However, admits that he has
not mentioned the colours of the external injuries
mentioned in Ex.P.8 and also not mentioned the basis on
which he has stated that time since death.
14. Further admits that in Ex.P.8 he has not
mentioned as to on what basis he has arrived at a
conclusion that the injuries were antemortem in nature.
But he denies the suggestion that injuries mentioned in
Ex.P.8 were post mortem injuries and also suggestion that
there was no injury to the lung was denied and also the
suggestion that in spite of no such injuries to the lung, he
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
opined that death was due to injury to the lung and same
was denied.
15. Having perused the evidence available on
record and also the injuries noted by PW.10, there were
three contusion injuries and measurement is also
mentioned and apart from that evidence is very clear that
all the injuries were antemortem in nature and cause of
death was also due to injury to the lung. Though
suggestion was made that injuries were caused at the time
of exhuming the body, but same was denied. However,
certain answers are elicited that he has not mentioned the
colour of the external injuries and also not mentioned the
basis on which he has stated that time since death and in
Ex.P.8 he did not mention the basis that he has arrived at
conclusion that injuries were antemortem in nature. But
the fact is that PW-10-Doctor can identify the injuries
whether they were antemortem in nature or injuries were
caused after death and his evidence is very consistent that
nature of injuries are antemortem. The Court also to take
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
note of document Ex.P.8 - post mortem report and same is
very clear that 7th and 8th ribs on the posterior end on left
side are dislocated and also extravasation of blood over
front and back of ribs from 1 to 7th ribs and this clearly
indicate that the nature of injuries are antemortem in
nature and same is also lacerated at fracture site which
corresponds with the theory of lifting and throwing
deceased twice on the ground. When such being the case,
the very contention of the counsel that injuries might have
occurred at the time of exhuming the body cannot be
accepted. Even the Doctor has assessed the time since
death as 11-12 days prior to post mortem examination
and also specifically opined that all the injuries were
antemortem in nature and also the cause of death is due
to injury to the lung. Hence the injuries found on 7th and
8th ribs on the posterior end on left side are dislocated and
that there was an extravasation of blood over front and
back of ribs from 1 to 7th ribs. It is very clear that nature
of injuries sustained by the deceased was antemortem and
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
hence it is clear case of homicidal death and not natural
death as contended by the counsel appearing for the
appellant that due to age factor.
16. Now this Court has to analyze the prosecution
material before the Court in keeping the medical evidence.
The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs.1
to 3, who are grand daughters of deceased through her
son - Bhimanna and Yamanappa. PW.3 is the daughter of
Yamanappa and she reiterates the manner in which the
incident had taken place and also the cause for the
incident relates to keeping of firewood near the house of
Lakkavva. Her evidence is very clear and consistent that
when the incident had taken place, at that time her sister
tried to rescue the grandmother and accused abused and
scolded her and made an attempt to assault her. Her
evidence is that a threat was caused not to reveal the
same to anybody as such out fear of dire consequences
posed by the accused same was not revealed. PW3 herself
has given the compliant, she was also pursing II PUC at
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
the time of incident and she also identifies her signature in
Ex.P.3 and same is marked through her.
17. Now this Court has to consider the contents of
complaint which is marked as Ex.P.3. PW.3 also reiterated
in the complaint that, in the early morning on the date of
incident there was a quarrel between her grandmother and
the mother of the accused, but accused came and made
galata in the evening at 7.30 p.m. This incident was
witnessed by complainant, her sister - Sujata, who has
been examined as PW.5 and her cousin sister - Renuka
who has been examined as PW.4, so also it is her
statement in the complaint that neighborer - Mallamma
was also present. But said Mallamma has not supported
and she has turned hostile to the case. But in the
complaint it is specifically mentioned that accused caused
the threat not to reveal the same to anybody else, if they
discloses the same, he is going to take away their life.
Hence, complaint was not lodged. But they made
cremation of the body next day and specifically stated in
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
the complaint how an incident was taken place as well as
the act of the accused. But in the cross-examination, no
doubt the location of the house is elicited that house of
Mallamma was located very next to the house of deceased
Basamma so also the house of one Khadri Begam, the
house of CW.10 - Bademma and the house of one
Jetteppa. It is also important to note that PW.3 admits
that, if any death occurs in the house, dalapathi
Basanagowda used to inform the same to others. PW3
admits that accused attended the cremation but not
attended by all the family members. But she admits that
her uncle and aunt came after the cremation from Goa.
The material discloses that they came on the next day and
thereafter only cremation was made, but admits that in
Ex.P.3 she did not mention that her parents were in Goa.
PW3 denies the suggestion that death of her grandmother
was natural death. But she categorically says that police
came to house on 06.06.2013.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
18. The other witness is PW.4 who is the daughter
of uncle of PW.3 and she reiterates the deposition of PW.3
in her chief-examination. PW4 also admits regarding
location of the house, but she says that her mother came
on the next day of the death of their grandmother. But
her senior uncle and aunt came in the previous day
evening. It is suggested that accused was taking care of
Basamma and same was denied. A suggestion was made
that Basamma has not given any share and hence, they
were having ill-will against her and same was denied.
Further suggestion was made that when the accused was
taking care of Basamma and they were having ill-will
against him and same was denied. It is also suggested
that they have not taking care of Basamma and same was
denied. But nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of
PW.4 also with regard to the incident and assault made on
her.
19. The other witness is PW.5 who is also the sister
of PW.3 and she also reiterates in her evidence in chief as
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
deposed by PW.3 and also in the cross-examination admits
with regard to location of place of incident and in respect
of incident and manner of assault made on Basamma,
nothing is elicited except the suggestions and only answer
elicited is the assault was revealed immediately.
20. The other witnesses are PWs.8 and 9. PW.8 is
one of the son of Basamma, admittedly he was not
present on the date of incident. But only he says that he
came to know about the death of Basamma through PW.3
over the phone and have left Goa on the same night and
reached village on the next date and performed the
cremation. He categorically says that he came to know
about committing of murder after eight days since PW.3
revealed the same about lifting of Basamma by the
accused and thrown her on the ground. But in the cross-
examination he also admits with regard to the place of
house and location and he says that PW.3 revealed the act
of the accused and that he revealed the same to the
villagers. There are contradictions with regard to his
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
knowledge about the incident and in chief he says that he
came to know the same after eight days, but in the cross-
examination says that PW.3 informed about the same over
the phone and in turn he informed the same to the
villagers.
21. The other witness is his brother PW.9 and he
also says that his daughter PW.3 informed about the death
of his mother and performing of cremation and in the
evidence he says that he came to know about the same
after 7-8 days as the same was revealed to him by PW.3.
But, in the cross-examination, he admits that he had
informed dalapathi Basanagowda that it was a natural
death and he did not make any statement in terms of
Exs.D1 and D2. The other witnesses are formal witnesses
of police who have conducted investigation and registered
the case.
22. The first attack made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that there was delay in lodging
the complaint and the very incident is doubtful. The Court
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
has to take note of the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 and their
evidence is very consistent with regard to causing of
threat to them. It is also important to note that in the
complaint itself very specifically mentioned by PW.3 that
delay is on account of life threat given by the accused i.e.,
to PWs.3 to 5 and explanation is also given and very
contention that there is no explanation on the part of the
prosecution regarding delay cannot be countenanced. The
contents of Ex.P.3 is very clear with regard to delay is
caused due to threat and the same is mentioned in the
complaint itself and apart from that PWs.3 to 5
categorically deposed regarding threat is concerned and
also the evidence of PW.13 is very clear that in the
complaint, they have mentioned the delay and though
suggestion was made to PW.13 that he only insisted in the
complaint to write regarding delay and he categorically
denies the same. The said averments are found in the
middle of the complaint and not insertion as per the
instructions of PW.13 as suggested. It is also important to
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
note that the contents of Ex.P.3 is in the handwriting of
PW.3 and nothing is suggested to PW.3 that on insistence
of police only delay was mentioned. But in the middle of
the complaint itself delay is mentioned and hence, the first
contention that there was a delay cannot be accepted for
the reason that at the time of causing of threat PWs.8 and
9 were not present. Though PW.8 in the cross-examination
says that over the phone itself informed the same through
PW.3, but in the chief-examination both PWs.8 and 9
deposes that they came to know about the same after 8-9
days. No doubt, PW.9 says that he had informed dalapathi
that it was a natural death. But in view of his evidence
that he came to know about 8-9 days the said answer will
not go to the very root of the case of prosecution. It is
also not fatal to the case of prosecution that there was a
delay and Court has to take note of age of PWs.3 to 5,
they are all youngsters of 19 years, 12 years and 21 years
age and causing of threat to them by the accused cannot
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
be ruled out also nothing is elicited that no such threat
caused.
23. The other contention is that the medical
evidence not corroborates and same not correlate with
injuries found cannot be accepted and this Court already
while discussing the medical evidence and relying upon the
post mortem report comes to the conclusion that there is
dislocation of ribs and extravassation of blood found and
also Doctor evidence is very clear that those type of
injuries could be caused in the manner in which the
assault was made and hence, medical evidence not
supports the case of prosecution cannot be accepted.
24. Now with regard to consistent evidence is
concerned, PWs.3 to 5 are the eyewitnesses. They have
categorically deposed that accused lifted and thrown the
deceased Basamma on the ground twice in front of house
of PW.8 - Bhimanna i.e., in front of house of PW.4 and
both oral evidence of PWs.3 to 5 and evidence of PW.15
coupled with Exs.P.4 and 16 very clear that the incident
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
spot is situated infront of the main door of house of PW.8
- Bhimanna and also it is specific that when one of the
sister made an attempt to rescue the grandmother, at that
time accused caused threat and nothing is elicited in the
cross-examination of PWs.3 to 5 with regard to the
incident is concerned and manner in which he has
assaulted. But only suggestion was made that PWs.3 to 5
were not taking care of their grandmother and accused
was taking care of her and hence, they having ill-will and
same was categorically denied by PW.4. When such
suggestions were made and she is also aged about 12
years at the time of examination, nothing is found that she
was tutored and also there is no pre ill-will or any
animosity against the accused to implicate him in the case.
But evidence of PWs.3 to 5 is very consistent and
corroborative with each other and their evidence correlates
with medical evidence i.e., Ex.P.8 - post mortem report
and also the evidence of PW.10. No doubt PWs.8 and 9
have deposed that they came to know about the incident
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
after eight days, but PW.8 deposes that he came to know
about the same over phone, the same will not takes out
the case of prosecution and same is not fatal. Also the
admission on the part of PW.3 that accused had attended
the cremation, not other family members, same also will
not take away the case of the prosecution. The specific
case is that PWs.3 to 5 categorically deposed that accused
only assaulted and also PW.3 admits that accused also
attended the cremation and mere attending the cremation
by accused cannot be doubted the case of prosecution.
25. No doubt, DW.1 was examined before the Court
and deposes that PW.9 revealed that it was a natural
death, but the fact is that PW.9 categorically deposes that
he came to know about the same after eight days and
when such being the case, naturally PW.9 will reveals that
death is natural death and not on account of assault as he
was not aware of the same on the date of cremation. But
comes to know about incident only after eight days when
PW.3 revealed the same. Hence, the evidence of DW.1 will
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
not give any assistance. In the cross-examination, he
categorically admits that he cannot tell whether it was a
natural death or the case of homicidal and he is not having
any personal knowledge about the same. But he admits in
the cross-examination that PWs.3 to 5 used to visit the
house of Basamma and were helping the said Basamma in
bringing the water and also assisting Basamma. Hence the
very suggestion of the defence that they were not cordial
with Basamma, were not assisting, but only the accused
was assisting the deceased in her day to day affairs. The
said suggestion itself to the evidence of PW.4 is against
the evidence of DW.1 and on admission of DW.1 is very
clear that PWs.3 to 5 are visiting the house of Basamma
and assisting and hence, the evidence of PWs.3 to 5
cannot be discarded and the defence theory that PWs.3 to
5 having ill-will against accused cannot be accepted.
26. The Trial Court while appreciating the evidence
taken note of the fact that body was exhumed and also
taken note of the contention of the delay in paragraph
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
No.13, particularly relying on the evidence of PWs.3 to 5,
PWs.8, 9 and PW.13 coupled with the documentary
evidence of PW.3 and also taken note of consistent
evidence of PWs.3 to 5, while discussing the same in
paragraph No.14 and also with regard to the documentary
evidence is concerned taken note of Ex.P.8 - post mortem
report and also the evidence of PWs.3 to 5, PWs.8 and 9
and also police came to house on 06.06.2013 and body
was examined in presence of the Tahasildar and Doctor
who have been examined before the Court. The Trial Court
has also taken note of panchanama was conducted in
terms of Ex.P.12 and in terms of Ex.P.15 inquest was
conducted that too in the presence of PW.10 - Doctor who
conducted post mortem report. The Trial Court also taken
note of nature of injuries while discussing the same in
paragraph No.16 and a detail discussion was made about
the evidence of DW.1, who categorically admits that
children of PWs.8 and 9 were attending minor household
works like fetching water, helping in preparing food etc.,
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
to deceased Basamma, visiting the house of Basamma and
Trial Court taken note of all these material comes to the
conclusion that the case of prosecution corroborates with
regard to act of the accused is concerned.
27. The Trial Court also discussed that defence
having taken such defence has not adduced cogent
evidence to prove that on what occasion, prior to incident,
the accused did look after the welfare of the deceased
Basamma, much less to prove the defence and the
evidence available on record is very clear that Basamma
was sufficiently old enough, but due to the act of accused
she has sustained injuries which has ultimately resulted in
death. However, the Trial Court committed an error in
coming to the conclusion that there was a motive and
overt acts of the accused in causing homicidal death of
deceased Basamma, only with an intention to commit
murder, he did the same. The same cannot be accepted
that there was no motive and due to the quarrel between
the mother of accused as well as the grandmother of
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
PWs.3 to 5 an incident has taken place in the early
morning and he did not go to the spot with any weapon,
only when he was questioning the same, incident has
taken place, in a fit of anger appears to be that he lifted
her, thrown her on the ground and hence the Trial Court
committed an error in coming to conclusion that with an
intention to commit the murder, he did the act and it
appears that only on a sudden provocation at the spot he
did the act. Hence, it attracts Part II of Section 304 of IPC
and not Section 302 of IPC and Trial Court committed an
error in invoking Section 302 of IPC. It is a clear case of
offence under Section 304 Part II and not under Section
302 of IPC.
28. With regard to invoking of the offence
punishable under Section 506(2) is concerned, consistently
PWs.3 to 5 have deposed the same and hence, the Trial
Court justified in invoking Section 506(2) of IPC, however
the sentence of imprisonment is little harsh in the facts of
the case on hand.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
29. Having reassessed the material available on
record, this appeal can be allowed in part by modifying the
sentence and hence, we answer point for consideration
partly in affirmative.
30. In view of discussion made above, we pass the
following :
ORDER
i) Criminal appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2016
and order of sentence dated 03.10.2026 passed
in Sessions Case No.187/2013 by the Court of
the III Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC is modified for the offence under Section
304 Part II of IPC and hence, sentence is
modified for a period of seven years instead of
life imprisonment.
iii) In respect of the offence under Section 506(2)
of IPC is also modified for one year instead of
three years and both the sentences run
concurrently as held by the trial Court.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4682-DB
HC-KAR
iv) With regard to the fine is concerned, same is
unaltered.
v) The period of under trial prison which he had
undergone can be given as set-off under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
vi) The appellant/accused is directed to surrender
before the Court of the III Additional Sessions
Judge, Vijayapur within a period of two weeks.
If he fails to surrender to undergo for sentence,
then the Sessions Judge is directed to secure
the presence of the accused and send him to
prison to serve the sentence.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
SN
CT:NI
