Karnataka High Court
Sri Umesh Fakirappa Havakadad vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100235 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. UMESH FAKIRAPPA HAVAKADAD
AGE: 36 YEARS, R/O. BETASOOR,
HOOLIKATTI, TQ. SAUDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SAUDATTI POLICE STATION,
SAUDATTI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
YASHAVANT REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
NARAYANKAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH COURT OF
...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH DHARWAD
Date: 2025.07.17 10:45:31
+0530
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER CALLING FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 08.12.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.71/2023 AND PASS AN ORDER ACQUITTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND
504 OF IPC IN SESSIONS CASE NO.71/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE RAJESH
RAI K, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 08.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 11.12.2023
passed in S.C.No.71/2023 by the IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge at Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the
'learned Sessions Judge' for short), whereby the learned
Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He was also sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for
the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. It ordered
that all the sentences shall run concurrently and the accused
was entitled for set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was as
follows:
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
The complainant-Basavva M. Nandennavar is the wife of
deceased-Mallappa Gangappa Nandennavar and CW.14 and
CW.15 are their children. CW.8-Kareppa is the younger brother
of deceased-Mallappa. The accused-Umesh Fakirappa
Havakadad is the nephew of deceased and PW.2. PW.12-
Padmavati is the wife of accused. The accused, PW.12 and their
children were residing in the house of PW.2. The accused was
addicted to alcohol and use to quarrel with his wife and children
everyday. PW.2 and deceased used to advice him not to
indulge in such acts. However, the accused continued the
same. Hence, PW.2 and deceased drove him out of the house
two years prior to the incident. However, the accused used to
visit the house of PW.2 and quarrel with them. On 26.01.2023,
the deceased returned to his house from his land and after
having lunch, at about 03:30 p.m. he was having betel nut
along with PW.3 on a platform in front of the house of PW.6.
The complainant went in search of the deceased and in the
meantime, PW.2 also reached the said place where the
deceased was sitting. At that time, the accused armed with an
axe went there and assaulted deceased with an axe on the
nape of his neck accusing the deceased of not allowing him to
live with his wife and children. As a result of the assault,
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
Mallappa fell down from the platform and succumbed to the
injuries at the spot.
3. Later, PW.1-Complainant informed PW.19 the then
PSI of Savadatti Police station in writing on the same day as
per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.19 registered a case
against accused in Crime No.40/2003 dated 26.01.2023 for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC as per
Ex.P28. Subsequently, PW.19 conducted investigation by
drawing spot mahazar-Ex.P2, inquest panchanama as per
Ex.P13 and arrested the accused on the same day and based
on his voluntary statement, the weapon M.O.1-axe used for the
crime and clothes of the accused were seized. Subsequently,
after recording the statement of material witnesses and on
obtaining documents from the concerned authorities, PW.19
laid charge sheet against accused for the aforementioned
offences before the committal Court.
4. After committal of case before the Sessions Court,
the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC
and read over the same to the accused. The accused denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
5. To prove the charges leveled against the accused
before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined 22
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.22 and marked 49 documents as
Ex.P1 to P49 and identified 9 material objects as M.O.1 to
M.O.9.
6. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence,
the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the
charges leveled against him and sentenced him as stated
supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is
challenged in this appeal.
7. We have heard Sri S.P. Kandagal, learned counsel
for the appellant-accused and learned Addl. SPP Sri M.B.
Gundawade for the respondent-State.
8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the judgment under challenge suffers from
perversity and illegality since the learned Sessions Judge failed
to appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective.
He contended that there were material contradictions and
omissions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident i.e.,
PWs.1 to 3. Among these witnesses, PWs.1 and 2 admitted in
their cross-examination that they reached the alleged spot of
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
incident after the deceased fell on the ground and PW.3 also
admitted the same. Further, PW.3 stated that he was unable to
see the accused at the time of incident and he saw him after
the incident. In such circumstance, he contends, the evidence
of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be relied to prove the charges leveled
against the accused. He further contended that PWs.1 and 2
are interested witnesses since they are the wife and brother of
deceased and PW.3 is a close friend of PWs.1 and 2. Hence, he
contends that their evidence cannot be relied without any
corroborative evidence of independent witness. The learned
counsel further contended that, PWs.4 to 7 are hearsay
witnesses; they reached the alleged spot after the incident and
they were informed by PWs.1 to 3 about the incident, as such,
no credence can be attached to their evidence. Additionally he
contended, though the prosecution relied on the evidence of
PWs.8 and 10 to prove the recovery of material objects at the
instance of the accused, on perusal of their evidence, the
recovery was not effected as provided under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act and also as per the guidelines issued by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Lastly, he
contended that the prosecution also failed to prove the motive
for the alleged incident. Hence, according to the learned
counsel, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
based on surmises and conjectures and therefore, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the appeal.
9. Alternatively he contended, if the incident in
question is admitted for the sake of argument, still the act of
the accused squarely falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of
IPC which is punishable under Section 304 Part I or II of IPC.
He contends that as per the case of the prosecution the
deceased drove out the accused from the house of PW.2, due
to which, the accused was provoked to commit the offence. He
contends, the act committed by the accused is without any
premeditative motive and in a spur of moment or in a fit of
anger. Further, the accused did not act in a cruel manner at the
time of incident or after the incident. Hence, the learned
counsel prays to modify the sentence to Section 304 Part I or II
of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.
10. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP supported the
impugned judgment and contended inter alia that the learned
Sessions Judge convicted the accused by a well reasoned
judgment after meticulously examining the evidence and
documents on record. Therefore, he contends that the
impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity or
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
illegality. He contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3-
eyewitnesses to the incident clearly established that on the
fateful day, when the deceased was sitting on platform in front
of the house of PW.6 along with PW.3, the accused came there
armed with M.O.1-axe and assaulted him on his neck and
murdered him. He contends that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is
consistent without any contradiction or omission. He contends
that, the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 also established the presence
of the accused at the spot with an axe-M.O.1 in hand. He
contends in addition, the prosecution examined PWs.6 and 7-
the circumstantial witnesses to the incident who deposed about
the motive for the incident. He further contended that the
prosecution proved the recovery of M.O.1-axe used for
committing the offence and M.Os.2 and 3-clothes of the
accused worn at the time of incident seized under Exs.P16 and
P14 respectively from the evidence PWs.8 and 9. Further, the
prosecution examined PW.22-the Scientific Officer who
submitted the FSL report to prove that the weapon and clothes
of the accused were stained with human blood. In such
circumstance, he contended that the prosecution proved the
guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays
to dismiss the appeal.
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and on perusal of the evidence and documents on
record, the points that would arise for our consideration are:
i. Whether the judgment under this appeal
suffers from any perversity or illegality?
ii. Whether the learned Sessions Judge
justified in convicting the accused-appellant
for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 504 of IPC?
12. It can be gathered from the records that in order to
prove the homicidal death of deceased-Mallappa, the
prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.15-
Medical Officer who conducted autopsy of the deceased and
issued postmortem report as per Ex.P30. PW.15 gave his
opinion as to cause of death is due to "cardio-respiratory
failure, secondary to hypovolemic shock added with vital
cranio-cerebral injury to brain as a result of head injury". He
also stated that, all the injuries sustained by the deceased were
ante-mortem in nature. Additionally, the prosecution relied on
the inquest panchanama conducted on the deceased by PW.19-
Investigation Officer as per Ex.P13. PW.8 was the inquest
witness who identified the injuries on the body of the deceased.
Hence, on a collective reading of the evidence of PWs.15, 19
and 8 along with EXs.P30 and P13, we are of the view that the
- 10 -
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased
beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. To connect the accused to the homicidal death of
deceased, the prosecution significantly relied on the evidence of
PWs.1 to 3-eyewitnesses to the incident, PWs.4 and 5-the res
justae witnesses, PWs.6 and 7-the circumstantial witnesses and
PWs.8 and 9-the recovery mahazar witnesses, PW.19-
Investigation Officer and PW.22-FSL Officer. Among these
witnesses, PW.1 is the wife of deceased, who set the criminal
law into motion by lodging complaint against the accused as
per Ex.P1. On careful perusal of the contents of Ex.P1, she
stated that the accused was the nephew of deceased-Mallappa
and PW.2 and he had married PW.12. The accused was
addicted to alcohol and failed to look after his wife and children.
As such, all of them were residing in the house of PW.2.
Despite, this the accused continued with his behaviour of
abusing PW.12. Therefore, PW.2 and deceased drove him out of
the house two years prior to the incident. Hence, he was
grinding ill-will against deceased and his brother-PW.2. On the
fateful day, the accused murdered the deceased when he was
sitting on a platform along with PW.3 in front of the house of
PW.6. The accused assaulted the deceased with M.O.1-axe on
- 11 -
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
nape of his neck, due to which the deceased succumbed at the
spot. The said incident was witnessed by PWs.1 to 3. PW.1
reiterated the assertion made in the complaint in her evidence
before the Court. There are no discrepancies in her evidence
and complaint-Ex.P1 was lodged at the earliest point of time.
Further, this evidence of PW.1 clearly corroborates the
testimony of PWs.2 and 3-the eyewitnesses to the incident.
Both these witnesses have deposed that the accused was
grinding ill-will against the deceased and PW.2, as they drove
him out of the house. Further, on the date of the incident, the
deceased was sitting on a platform situated in front of the
house of PW.6 along with PW.3 and having betel nut. At that
time, the accused armed with M.O.1-axe went there and
assaulted the deceased and murdered him. The evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 is consistent and all these witnesses identified
M.O.1-axe used by the accused to assault the deceased.
Though the defence counsel cross-examined these witnesses
intensely and extensively, they withstood the test of cross-
examination, albeit a few minor contradictions in their
testimony, which did not go to the root of the prosecution case.
The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PWs.4 and 5,
who deposed that they visited the spot immediately after the
incident; saw the accused running from the place of incident
- 12 -
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
with the blood stained axe-M.O.1 and saw the body of the
deceased at the spot. Later, they were informed by PWs.1 to 3
that the accused murdered the deceased. Hence, the evidence
of PWs.4 and 5 who are res justae witnesses also carries
evidentiary value and adds credence to the evidence of the
eyewitnesses-PWs.1 to 3. Their testimonies are relevant piece
of evidence as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Further, on a careful examination of the evidence of PWs.6 and
7, PW.6 stated that she found blood stains on the platform
situated in front of her house on the date of incident and she
came to know that the accused murdered the deceased at the
said place. PW.7 also deposed about the motive for the
commission of offence. Hence, on a careful analysis of evidence
of PWs.1 to 7, the prosecution successfully established that the
appellant committed the offence.
14. The prosecution also proved the recovery of M.Os.1
to 3 i.e., M.O.1-axe used by the accused for the commission of
crime and M.Os.2 and 3 the shirt and trouser of the accused
worn at the time of incident. These material objects were
seized at the instance of the accused based on his voluntary
statement under recovery mahazars-Exs.P14 and P16 by the
Investigation Officer-PW19. PWs.8 and 9-the mahazar
- 13 -
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
witnesses, supported the case of prosecution and stated in their
evidence that the accused showed the place where he had
hidden M.Os.1 to 3 and the Police seized the same under
Exs.P14 and 16. They identified their respective signature on
Exs.P14 and 16. Though the defence counsel made an attempt
to prove that M.Os.1 to 3 are recovered at the instance of
Police and not by the accused, however, both these witnesses
have denied those suggestions put to them in their cross-
examination. Hence, the prosecution successfully proved the
recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 at the instance of accused. Further, the
Investigation Officer sent M.Os.1 to 3 for chemical examination.
PW.22 is the FSL Officer who subjected the M.Os.1 to 3 for
chemical analysis. In his evidence he stated that, all these
material objects were stained with human blood of 'O' group.
However, a contention was raised by the learned counsel for
the accused that PW.22 had failed to determine the RH factor
of 'O' blood group found on M.Os.1 to 3. We are afraid and
unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel, for
the reason, as per the settled position of law by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and this Court, the evidence of experts cannot be
disbelieved on hyper technical reasons. Moreover, the same
shall be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence. The
Investigation Officer also obtained the opinion from the Doctor-
- 14 -
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
PW.15 who opined as per his report at Ex.P31 that the injuries
found on the body of the deceased could be caused if assaulted
by M.O.1-axe. In such circumstance, in our considered opinion,
the prosecution placed sufficient evidence and documents to
prove the guilt of the accused. Per contra, the accused failed to
furnish any such explanation in his 313 statement as to why
the Police had falsely implicated him in the case.
15. As far as the alternative contention of the learned
counsel for the accused is concerned, on an overall
consideration of the evidence on record and the manner in
which the accused committed the murder of deceased, we are
of the view that the act of accused does not fall under
Exception 1 or 4 to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable
under Section 304 part I or II of IPC. There is no evidence in
record to justify that the deceased provoked the accused and
due to such provocation the accused in fit of rage murdered the
deceased. As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, deceased was
sitting on the platform along with PW.3 and having betel nut. At
that time, accused assaulted him repeatedly with M.O.1-axe,
on the vital part of deceased i.e., on the neck. The
premeditative motive on the part of the accused to commit the
murder of deceased is very clear. Viewed from any angle, the
- 15 -
CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024
act of accused does not fit into any of the exception clauses
under Section 300 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the
alternative contention of the learned counsel is also liable to be
rejected.
16. As discussed supra, the prosecution successfully
proved the guilt of accused by placing cogent evidence beyond
all reasonable doubt. Hence, in our considered view, the
learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused for the
charges leveled against him. In that view of the matter,
interference in the impugned judgment is not warranted.
Accordingly, we answer point No.1 raised above in the
'negative' and point No.2 in the 'affirmative' and proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal No.100235/2024 is dismissed.
SD/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
CT:PA
