Karnataka High Court
Shivanand vs State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
CRL.A No. 200031 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200031 OF 2018
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAND S/O HUSSAINAPPA KASHI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: FOOT WEAR SHOP,
R/O. RAKHAMGERA, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR-585201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANTOSH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed THROUGH SHAHAPUR POLICE STATION,
by SHILPA R REPT BY ADDL. SPP,
TENIHALLI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH AT KALABURAGI-585103.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 15.02.2018
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 306 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND HAS
SENTENCED HIM TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE
YEARS OF SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY FINE OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
CRL.A No. 200031 of 2018
RS.5,00,000/- AND FURTHER IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT OF 2 YEARS, OF THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
YADGIRI IN S.C.NO.102/2014.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C is filed
with the prayer to set aside the judgment of conviction
dated 15.02.2018 and order of sentence dated 16.02.2018
passed by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Yadgiri, in S.C.No.102/2014, wherein the
appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and
to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
2 years.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
3. FIR in crime No.92/2013 was registered against
the appellant/accused herein by Shahapur Police Station,
Yadgiri, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of
IPC on the basis of the first information dated 01.04.2013
received from PW1 -Smt.Shweta W/o deceased Ulvesh.
Investigation in the case was completed and charge sheet
was filed against appellant in the said case and he was
tried for the charge-sheeted offence before the
Jurisdictional Sessions Court in S.C.No.102/2014. During
the course of trial, the prosecution in order to substantiate
its charges against the accused, had examined 19 charge-
sheeted witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.19 and got marked 12
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On behalf of the defence,
no evidence was led, nor any material objects were got
marked.
4. The trial Court after hearing the arguments
addressed by both sides, vide the impugned Judgment and
order, has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused
for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused is
before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused
submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that
the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased had
committed suicide by consuming poison. He submits that
the trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the
evidence of PW.17, in the background of Ex.P.7, Ex.P.9,
Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11. He submits that, the prosecution has
not placed any material on record to show that, the
accused had filed any application seeking change of Khata
or seeking mutation orders which were pending
consideration in the Municipality. Therefore, the allegation
made as against the accused is baseless. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader has argued in support of the impugned Judgment
and order and submits that, the trial Court having
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
record, has rightly convicted the appellant for the alleged
offence and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. The appellant has been charge-sheeted in the
present case with an allegation that, because of the
torture and threat given by him to the deceased who was
working as a Bill Collector in the local Municipality, the
deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison and
therefore, allegation is made against the accused that, he
had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and
accordingly, he has been charge-sheeted for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The first
informant P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. The material
on record would go to show that, the deceased was
allegedly admitted to the Hospital on 14.03.2023 and he
had subsequently died in the Hospital on 01.04.2013. After
the death of the deceased, P.W.1 had approached the
police on 01.04.2023 and in her first information,
allegations were made that, because of the torture and
threat given by the accused, the deceased had committed
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
suicide. It is alleged that, the accused was threatening of
filing false atrocity case against the deceased, if he does
not consider the application filed by the wife of the
accused for change of revenue entries in respect of a
certain plot of land.
8. The prosecution, in support of its case has
examined 19 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.19. The material
on record would go to show that, the deceased was
initially shifted on 14.03.2013 in an Ambulance to
Shahapur Government Hospital and therafter, he was
shifted to Hospital at Kalaburagi and subsequently to
Medicare Hospital at Kalaburagi, wherein he died on
01.04.2013. The prosecution has not examined the
Doctors of any one of the aforesaid Hospitals, where the
deceased was admitted for treatment. The medical records
of the deceased from the aforesaid Hospitals are also not
produced before the Court.
9. P.W.17 Dr. Omprakash Patil S/o. Rudrappa Patil
is the Doctor who has conducted postmortem of the dead
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
body of the deceased-Ulvesh. P.W.17 has stated that, the
viscera of the deceased was collected and sent for medical
examination and the medical examination report issued by
the Forensic Science Laboratory is marked as Ex.P.7. In
Ex.P.7, it is opined that, the residues of volatile poisons,
pesticides, drugs, alkaloids and toxic metal ions were not
detected in the articles which were forwarded for the
purpose of medical examinations. P.W.17 has stated that,
based on the report at Ex.P.7, he had given a final report
regarding cause of death of the deceased mentioning that,
the death was as a result of Cardio-respiratory arrest
secondary to multi organ failure. The said report is marked
as Ex.P.9. Final opinion given by P.W.17 is marked as
Ex.P.10. Signature of P.W.17 in the aforesaid two
documents is marked as Ex.P.9(a) and Ex.P.10(a)
respectively.
10. P.W.17 has specifically stated that police have
asked for a further report and accordingly he has given a
second final opinion report stating that death is as a result
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
of cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to multi organ
failure due to unknown poison. The second final opinion
report of the doctor is marked as Ex.P.11 and his
signature is marked as Ex.P.11(a). From the evidence of
P.W.17 it is apparent that he had issued the first final
opinion with regard to the cause of death based on the
chemical examination report received from forensic
science laboratory as per Ex.P.7. The second final opinion
report with regard to the cause of death is issued by the
Doctor, only at the request of the police and not based on
any report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and
therefore it is very clear that the second final opinion
report with regard to the cause of death of the deceased
issued by P.W.17 is not based on any report of the
competent authority which states that poisonous or toxic
material were detected in the viscera of the deceased.
11. Sri. Praveen Sanganalmath, Scientific Officer
(P.W.13) is the author of Ex.P.7. This witness has clearly
stated that, no poisonous substance was found in the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
articles which were forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory for the purpose of chemical examination.
Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that
the death was as a result of consuming poison by the
deceased. The trial Court has totally failed to appreciate
this aspect of the matter and based on the evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 to P.W.11 who have deposed that
the accused was threatening the deceased of filing false
atrocity case against him if he does not favorably consider
the application of his wife for transfer of the revenue
records in respect of certain plot of land, has proceeded to
convict the accused for the offense punishable under
Section 306 of IPC on the ground that there is material to
show that the accused was threatening and torturing the
deceased and as a result of which he had committed
suicide. The trial Court has unfortunately failed to
appreciate that the prosecution has failed to establish
before the Court by producing necessary material to show
that the death of deceased was as a result of consuming
poison.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
12. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant
for offense punishable under Section 306 of IPC and
sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of five years and pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further
period of two years, cannot be sustained. Accordingly I
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed;
(ii) The Judgment of conviction dated
15.02.2018 and the order of sentence dated
16.02.2018 passed in S.C.No.102/2024 by
the Sessions Judge Court, at Yadgiri, is set
aside;
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:50
(iii) The accused/appellant is acquitted of the
charge-sheeted offense and his bail bonds if
any stands cancelled.
(iv) The fine amount if any deposited by the
appellant/accused shall be refunded to him.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
AMM,SVH
CT:PK
