Karnataka High Court
Kantharaju @ Raju vs The State By Nelamangala on 16 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
CRL.A No. 987 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2023
Between:
Kantharaju @ Raju
S/o Sannaningappa,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at Katanayakanahalli,
Hiriyuru Taluk,
Chitradurga District
Pin: 577511
(Now in Central Prison,
Parappana Agrahara J.C.,
Bengaluru - 560100).
...Appellant
Digitally signed by (By Sri. N.R.Krishnappa, Advocate)
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M
Location: HIGH And:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. The State by Nelamangala
Rural Police,
By S.P.P. High Court Building,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Lacha Naika
S/o Purada Rama Naika
Aged 44 years
R/o Kathanayakanahalli
Lambani Hatti, Hiriyur Taluk
Chitradurga District - 572143.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
CRL.A No. 987 of 2023
(Amended cause title as per the
vide court order dated 04.08.2023)
...Respondents
(By Sri Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II for R1;
Smt. Priyanka S. Urs, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.374(2) Cr.P.C. praying to
set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the court of II
Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru, dated 06.10.2020 sentenced on 09.10.2020 passed
in Spl.C.No.149/2013 convicting the appellant for the offence
p/u/s.302, 201, 497, 506 of IPC and u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, sentencing imprisonment for life and also imposing
fine to set aside the same.
This Criminal Appeal, coming on for hearing, this day,
judgment was delivered therein as under:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
The accused in Spl. C. No. 149/2013 on the file of II
Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru, has preferred this appeal questioning
the correctness of the judgment dated 6.10.2020
convicting him for the offences under Sections 302, 497,
201 and 506 of IPC, and an offence punishable under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['SC/ST
(POA) Act' for short]. The sentence imposed on him is for
life for the offences under Section 302 of IPC and Section
3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and term sentences for
three years imprisonment for the offence under Section
497, two years for the offence under Section 201 of IPC
and one year for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.
2. The incident that led to prosecution of the
accused took place on 14.07.2013. The report of the
incident was given to the police by PW1 Lacha Naika. He
reported to the police that his niece Lalitha Bai was given
in marriage to his elder brother Naga Naika and they had
three children. About two years before the date of
incident the accused started loving Lalitha Bai and one
year thereafter, Lalitha Bai and the accused left their
village and started living in a village called Railway
Gollahalli situate near Dabaspet. Both of them were
working in the garden land of one Ramaswamy. On
14.07.2013 around 2.00 p.m, accused made a telephone
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
call to Guru and informed him that Lalitha Bai had died
and he was bringing the dead body. When he was waiting
for the arrival of dead body, at 7.30 p.m., PW6
Chandrakala, the daughter of Lalitha Bai told him that at
10.00 a.m on that day, the accused and her mother
quarreled with each other in regard to procuring ration
card. Her mother became desperate because of quarrel.
She went inside the room to hang herself. She went near
a window and tied the rope and put the noose around her
neck and at that time the accused, stating that she should
die, pulled her leg. Then the accused himself cut the rope
to bring the body down. By that time her mother was
dead. He brought the body to the hospital in his native
place. He threatened her that she would kill her in case
she disclosed the incident to anybody and then left that
place. Then PW1 went to the police station to make report
of the incident. Investigation resulted in filing charge sheet
against the accused for the abovementioned offences.
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
3. Upon appreciation of evidence the trial court has
recorded reasons that the accused picked up quarrel with
the deceased, assaulted her with hands and provoked her
to commit suicide. Because of that provocation and out of
frustration, the deceased decided to commit suicide. If
really the accused had no intention or had not pre-planned
or did not have motive, he would have definitely convinced
the deceased not to go the extent of hanging herself.
When the deceased tied the rope to the iron rod on the
roof, and when she stood on the window slab, the accused
came towards the window and pulled her leg. All these
events show that the accused had the knowledge of the
consequences that would ensue if he would pull the leg.
The age of the accused at that time was 24 years and
being an ordinary prudent man he was very much aware
of the act he was going to do and therefore it cannot be
said that he did not have intention to kill the deceased.
Added to that, the deceased was a married woman and
she had three children. In spite of that he induced her to
elope with him. Even though they led a happy life for
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
about a year, very often he used to threaten that he would
leave her company and return to his native place. The act
does not appear to have taken place in a spur of the
moment. In this view the accused can be held guilty of
the offence under section 302 IPC. So far as the offence
under section 497 IPC is concerned, it is held by the trial
court that the accused had the knowledge that the
deceased was a married woman and in spite of that he
developed illicit relationship with her. The deceased
belonged to Schedule Caste. The caste of the deceased
has been proved. For having committed an offence under
section 302 IPC, the offence under section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act would also get attracted. Then after
causing the death of the deceased, he carried the dead
body to his native place with an intention to screening the
evidence and for this reason offence under section 201 IPC
also gets proved. Giving these reasons the trial court
recorded conviction and passed sentence as aforesaid.
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
4. We have heard the arguments of Sri.N.R.
Krishnappa, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and
Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the State.
5. It is the argument of Sri.N.R. Krishnappa that the
trial court has grossly erred in recording conviction for the
offence under section 302 IPC inasmuch as the
testimonies of PW6 and PW9 does not indicate that the
appellant had intended to do away with the life of the
deceased. Those two witnesses who are the children of
the deceased have clearly stated that when the accused
asked the deceased to give money to him for the purpose
of procuring ration card, she refused and for that reason
quarrel erupted between them. This quarrel went on
throughout the day. It was only when the deceased
proceeded to commit suicide by hanging herself, the
accused was still in a state of provocation and anger. If in
that course, if he pulled the legs of the deceased, it only
shows that he did so having lost control over himself and
thereby one of the exceptions to section 300 IPC could be
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
applied so that the offence could be scaled down to one
punishable under section 304(I) IPC. If really the accused
had intention to kill, he would have proceeded to kill the
deceased in some other manner, because both of them
were living together. When the quarrel took place he did
not make any attempt to assault. The trial court has
grossly erred in considering the attending circumstances.
So far as the offence under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA)
Act is concerned, it is submitted by Sri. N.R. Krishnappa
that inspite of the fact that the deceased belonged to
lambani caste, which is categorized as scheduled caste,
the accused never intended to exploit the deceased on the
caste factor. It was not his intention to subject any
member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. They just
had relationship and lived together. Ingredients required
to punish person not belonging to scheduled caste are
conspicuously absent and therefore recording of conviction
for the offence under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act is
not sustainable. It is submitted that the accused has been
in custody since 21.08.2013, that means he has already
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
spent more than 11 years in the jail. For these reasons,
the impugned judgment be modified. The conviction
against the accused can be reduced to the offences under
section 304(1) IPC and the period of sentence he has
already served be set off in the punishment to be imposed.
6. Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II, argued
that the entire case can be brought within the scope of
section 302 IPC for the reason that he knew the
consequences of pulling the leg of the deceased when she
put the rope around her neck to commit suicide. Fourthly
of section 300 IPC is attracted. The evidence of PW6 and
PW9 establishes the fact that the accused had clear
intention to kill the deceased and therefore there are no
reasons to bring down the offence under section 302 IPC
to section 304(I) IPC. In regard to offence under section
3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, it is submitted by SPP-II that
the accused knew the caste of the deceased when he
induced her to elope with him and it was an intention to
exploit a member of SC and having killed her he is bound
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
to be punished for the said offence. Appeal is devoid of
merits and therefore appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. From the arguments, it is clear that what requires
to be examined is whether the entire incident would
indicate an offence punishable under section 304 IPC.
PW6 and 9 are the prominent witnesses, being the
children of the deceased. It is the clear evidence of PW6
that on the date of incident, the accused asked her mother
to give him money for the purpose of procuring the ration
card. Her mother refused to give him money and for this
reason there arose a quarrel between the two and the
accused beat her mother. Then her mother said that
instead of getting beatings from him, it was better to die
and therefore she tied a rope to the iron rod on the roof
and at that time the accused said that it was better that
she should die and telling that he pulled her mother's legs.
For this reason, the death occurred. She has further
stated that she and her brother screamed loudly and at
that time both of them were threatened by the accused.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
Thereafter the accused himself held the legs of the
deceased and PW9 untied the rope. The accused
thereafter made a telephone call to Manjula, the elder
daughter of the deceased and told her that her mother
was dead because of stomach ache. PW9, the son of the
deceased has also given evidence in the same manner.
These two witnesses are the eye witnesses to the incident
and they have firmly stuck to their testimony in
examination-in-chief when they were cross-examined.
8. It is not necessary to refer to the other evidence
relating to mahazars which are the usual procedures the
police officers follow during investigation. Though the
investigating officer has stated that based on the voluntary
statement of the accused he was able to recover the rope
at the place of incident, the said recovery does not assume
importance because the rope was not hidden by the
accused at any place, it was lying at the place of incident
itself. What is important is the evidence with regard to the
incident, which is firmly justified by PW6 and 9. Now if the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
entire evidence is seen, it becomes very clear that it was
the accused though picked up quarrel with the deceased
when the latter refused to give money to him for obtaining
ration card, he did not go to the extent of causing her
death. Quarrel might have taken place throughout the
day and during the quarrel, the accused might have
beaten her, but he did not take extreme decision of
causing the death of the deceased. But it appears that he
was in a kind of mental turmoil because of the continuous
quarrel and when he saw the deceased tying the rope to
the iron rod on the roof and putting the other end of the
rope around her neck to commit suicide, at that moment
he just said that she should die and pulled her legs. This
no doubt resulted in death, but the question is, had the
accused gone to the extent of pulling her legs if the
deceased had not tried to commit suicide. Definitely the
answer would be he would not have pulled her legs.
Looked from this angle, it can be clearly said that the
accused had no intention to cause the death of the
deceased. However verbal utterance, 'you should die'
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
does not amount to entertaining the intention to cause the
death of another. This is how the entire incident appears
to have taken place. As it appears very well that the
accused would not have pulled the legs of the deceased if
she had not tried to commit suicide, the next question
would be whether the accused had the knowledge of the
consequences he was doing. To this question, the answer
would be definitely 'yes'. The deceased had already tied
one end of the rope to the iron rod on the roof and put the
noose around her neck. She was standing on the window
panel. So when he pulled her legs he should be having
the knowledge of dire consequences that would follow.
Therefore fourthly of section 300 IPC would be applicable.
But to this exception (4) of section 300 IPC can be applied
because it has been stated by PW6 and PW9 that there
was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on
that day for the sake of money to procure ration card and
it appears that both of them had quarreled throughout the
day. When there was such a quarrel, quite obviously a
state of mental disturbance can be expected to persist,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
and in such kind of a situation, seeing the deceased
rushing to commit suicide if he had rushed to pull the legs,
it must be in a state of provocation and anger and
therefore exceptions 1 and 4 of section 300 IPC can be
applied. If these exceptions are applied, definitely the
case falls within the ambit of section 304 IPC. Since the
intention is absent and that the accused had only
knowledge of what he was doing, the entire case can be
brought within the purview of Part - II of section 304 IPC.
The trial court should have appreciated the evidence from
this angle. Inferences drawn by the trial court about
intention, preparation etc., in the absence of evidence to
that effect cannot be sustained.
9. So far as the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act is concerned, it is to be stated that
merely for the reason that the deceased belonged to
Lambani caste, which has been categorized under
Scheduled Caste, the said offence appears to have been
invoked without there being any material for invocation of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
that offence. Any intention to exploit a member of
scheduled caste or to cause the death of a member of
scheduled caste only for the reason that she belonged to
that caste is not forthcoming. In the absence of intention
to exploit on the caste basis, mechanical invocation of
provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act is incorrect. Therefore the
conviction for this offence is not sustainable.
10. In regard to the offence under Section 201 of
IPC, in spite of the fact that the accused carried the dead
body from the place of incident, it cannot be said that the
offence under Section 201 of IPC is attracted. He simply
shifted the dead body from one place to another place.
The intention to destroy the evidence is not forthcoming.
Therefore conviction for the offence under Section 201 IPC
is not sustainable.
11. However, conviction for the offence under
Section 497 of IPC is to be sustained because deceased
was a married woman and the accused knew very well
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
that he was developing contact with a married woman,
whose husband was alive at that time.
12. Therefore from the above discussion, we are of
the opinion that the judgment of the trial court requires
modification. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction is modified.
iii) The accused is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 201 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
iv) The accused is held guilty of the offence
under Section 304(II) of IPC instead Section
302 of IPC.
v) The conviction and sentence imposed on the
accused for the offence punishable under
Section 497 of IPC is sustained.
vi) Since the appellant has spent more than 11
years in jail during the trial and after
conviction, the period he has already spent in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1589-DB
jail is set-off for the punishment to be
imposed on him for the offence under Section
304 Part II of IPC.
vii) The punishment imposed for the offence
under Section 497 of IPC is made to run
concurrently with the punishment imposed for
the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
viii) The accused is hereby directed to be released
forthwith, if he is not required in any case/s.
ix) Send back the trial court records forthwith
with a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
SD
