Karnataka High Court
Shankara S/O. Hanumantappa Sali vs State Of Karnataka Through on 24 July, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100109 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SHANKARA S/O. HANUMANTAPP SALI,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC. PRISON SERVING THE SENTENCE,
AT. PO. KADARMANDALAGI,
TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANURADHA R. DESHPANDE, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
BYADAGI POLICE STATION, BYADAGI CIRCLE,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location:
HIGH COURT
YASHAVANT OF
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
DHARWAD
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Date:
2025.07.24
14:14:36
+0530 DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C 1973., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
29/07/2019 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 29/07/2019
PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT
HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN S.C.NO.71/2016 IN CRIME
NO.93/2016 OF BYADAGI POLICE STATION CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT. CONVICTED AND SENTENCED UNDERGO
IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND TO PAY A FINE OF 5000 IN
DEFAULT TO UNDER GO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE
YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF
IPC.
-2-
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE RAJESH
RAI K, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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 by the convicted accused is directed against
the judgment of conviction dated 29.07.2019 and order of
sentence dated 31.07.2019 passed in S.C.No.71/2016 by the II
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, Sitting at
Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions
Judge' for short) whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 5 years.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:
The deceased-Hanumantappa Sannamariyappa Sali was
the father of accused. The accused was a vagabond and
therefore, the deceased used to advice him to get into a job. As
such, the accused developed hatred towards the deceased. On
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
17.04.2016 at about 05:45 p.m., when the deceased was in his
house, the accused picked up a quarrel with him and all of a
sudden assaulted the deceased on his neck with a sickle and
fled away from the spot. Immediately, PWs.6 to 8 shifted the
injured to Byadagi Government Hospital. After first aid, he was
shifted to CG Hospital Davangere for higher treatment.
However, the Doctor in the said Hospital advised them to shift
the injured to City Central Hospital, Davangere. On the
following day i.e., 18.04.2016 when they were on the way to
City Central Hospital, Davanagere, the deceased succumbed to
the injuries. Hence, PW.2 i.e., the son of deceased lodged a
complaint before Byadagi Police Station against the accused on
18.04.2016 at about 11:00 a.m. as per Ex.P6. On the strength
of Ex.P6, PW.17-the then PSI of the respondent-Police
registered FIR against accused for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.93/2016 as per Ex.P17.
3. Subsequent thereto, the Investigation Officer-
PW.19 conducted investigation by drawing spot mahazar,
inquest panchanama and arrested the accused on 18.04.2016
and effected the seizer of M.Os.1 to 5 under panchnama-
Ex.P10. After recording the statement of material witnesses, on
obtaining documents from the concerned authorities, he laid
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC before the committal Court.
4. After committal of case before the Sessions Court,
the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused
for the aforementioned offence and read over the same to him.
The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the charges leveled against the accused,
the prosecution examined 19 witnesses as PWs.1 to 19 and
marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20 and identified 5
material objects as MOs.1 to 5. However, the accused marked
1 document as Ex.D1 on his behalf.
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 the learned Amicus Curiae Smt.
Anuradha R. Deshpande for the appellant and learned Addl. SPP
Sri A.M. Gundawade for the respondent-State.
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
8. The primary contention of the learned Amicus
Curiae for the appellant/accused is that, the learned Sessions
Judge grossly erred while convicting the appellant/accused
without appreciating the evidence in the right perspective. She
contended that there are major discrepancies in the evidence of
material witnesses i.e., PW.2-the eyewitness and PWs.6 to 10-
the hearsay witnesses who visited the spot immediately after
the incident. She further contended that, PW.13-the mother of
accused and wife of deceased turned hostile to the prosecution
case and denied the incident. Hence, the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the motive for the commission of crime by the
accused. Apart from urging these contentions, the learned
counsel alternatively contended that even on considering the
entire evidence on record, the act of accused squarely falls
under Exception I to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable
under Section 304 Part I or II of IPC, as the entire incident
occurred in the spur of a moment, when the accused lost self
control upon grave and sudden provocation following a quarrel
between him and deceased. Additionally, she contended that
the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the
time of incident and as such, he must have lost his self control
and might have committed the incident by mistake. Hence, she
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
prays to either acquit the accused from the charges leveled
against him or to modify the sentence from Section 302 of IPC
to Section 304 Part I of IPC.
9. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP contended that
the prosecution has placed cogent evidence to prove the
charges leveled against the accused and the learned Sessions
Judge rightly appreciated the same and convicted the accused
in a well reasoned judgment which does not call for any
interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that the
evidence of PW.2-the eyewitness to the incident clearly
established that the accused being the son of deceased was
quarrelling with his father and he assaulted deceased with a
sickle-M.O.1 and murdered him. Further, the evidence of PW.2
clearly corroborates the testimony of PWs.6 to 8 who visited
the spot immediately after the incident and shifted the injured
to the Hospital. Additionally, PWs.9 and 10 i.e. the neighbours
of the deceased who had immediately visited the scene of
occurrence and the saw the injury sustained by the deceased,
they also supported the case of prosecution. He further
contended that, the incident occurred in the house of deceased
where the accused was staying and his presence at the time of
incident was proved by the prosecution. The learned Addl. SPP
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
also contended that the act of accused does not fall under
Exception I to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under
Section 304 Part I or II of IPC since the accused assaulted the
deceased with a deadly weapon by choosing the vital part of
the body of deceased with an intention to murder him.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and on perusal of the entire evidence on record, the
points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the judgment under this appeal
suffers from any perversity or illegality?
2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC?
11. In order to prove the homicidal death of the
deceased-Hanumanthappa, the prosecution relied on the
evidence of PW.11-Doctor who conducted the autopsy of the
deceased and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P13. After
obtaining the RFSL report as per Ex.P12, the Doctor gave his
final opinion that the death is due to "combined effect of
hemorrhagic shock as well as respiratory interference as a
result of obstruction to respiratory passage at the right bronchi
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
level by sickle with leaded consequent effects
haemopneumothorax" as per Ex.P20. In the postmortem report
it is stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased are fresh
and ante-mortem in nature. The prosecution also placed
inquest panchanama-Ex.P11 drawn on the body of deceased on
18.04.2016 and the panch witnesses for the same i.e., PWs.4
and 5 have stated that they noticed the injuries on the body of
the deceased. Hence, on a collective reading of the evidence of
PW.11-Doctor, PWs.4 and 5 along with Exs.P11, 12, 13 and 20,
we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the
homicidal death of deceased.
12. To connect the accused to the homicidal death of
the deceased, the prosecution significantly relied on the
evidence of PWs.2, 6 to 10. Among these witnesses, PW.2 is
the son of deceased and brother of accused who set the
criminal law into motion by lodging complaint-Ex.P1. In his
evidence, he reiterated the assertion made in the complaint. He
deposed that the accused had completed SSLC and had
discontinued his studies and had become a vagabond. Hence,
his father was insisting him to go out and work, which resulted
in frequent quarrel between them. On 17.04.2016, too, the
accused quarreled with deceased over the same reason and
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
assaulted the deceased on his neck with M.O.1-sickle. On
hearing the hue and cry of the deceased, the neighbors and
relatives of deceased i.e., PWs.6 to 8 came to the house and
shifted him to the Hospital. However, on the following day, the
deceased succumbed to the injuries. The evidence of PW.2
corroborates the testimony of PWs.6 to 8. All these witnesses
have categorically stated that on the date of incident, they
heard the rumbling of PW.2 and they rushed to his house and
saw that the deceased had sustained injuries on his neck and
the sickle-M.O.1 was sticking out the neck of deceased.
Immediately they shifted the injured initially to the Byadagi
Government Hospital and from there to CG Hospital,
Davangere. Later on the advice of Doctor at CG Hospital, when
they were shifting the injured to City Central Hospital,
Davangere, he succumbed to injuries. Further, PWs.6 to 8
being the relatives of deceased and accused stated that the
accused was quarreling with his father before the incident. They
also identified M.O.1-sickle in the Court. The prosecution also
relied on the evidence of PW.13 the mother of accused and wife
of deceased. She partially supported the case of prosecution
and stated that on the fateful day the accused assaulted her
husband with M.O.1-sickle. Though she turned hostile in
- 10 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
respect of motive for the incident, to prove the motive, the
prosecution relied on the evidence of independent witnesses-
PWs.9 and 10 who are the neighbors of the deceased.
According to them, the accused was quarrelling with his father
and was not doing any work. They deposed that on the date of
incident, they came to know through PW.2 that the accused
assaulted the deceased with M.O.1-sickle and stated that on
the following day, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.
13. Hence, on examining the evidence of all these
witnesses, their evidence is consistent and trustworthy. Though
the defence subjected them to intense and extensive cross-
examination, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them to
discard their testimony.
14. Further, the Investigation Officer-PW.19 sent
M.Os.1 to 5 for chemical examination and PW.18-FSL Officer
gave his report as per Ex.P12 stating that all the material
objects were stained with human blood of 'A' group. The
recovery of M.Os.1 to 5 under Ex.P10 was supported by the
mahazar witness-PW.3. As stated supra, M.O.1 was identified
by PWs.1, 6 to 10. In such circumstance, the oral testimony of
material witnesses corroborates the medical and scientific
evidence. As rightly contended by the learned Addl. SPP, the
- 11 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
accused failed to explain the circumstance in his statement
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C or by leading defence
evidence as to why he was falsely implicated in this case being
the son of deceased and that too when the offence took place
in the house of deceased where the accused was residing.
Hence, on overall perusal of the evidence on record, we are of
the considered view that the accused alone had committed the
offence and he is solely responsible for the homicidal death of
deceased.
15. With regard to the alternative contention of the
learned counsel for the accused, as discussed supra, the motive
for the commission of crime is that, the accused was jobless
and the deceased was insisting him to do some job. On the
fateful day the deceased raised the same topic and all of a
sudden, the accused picked up a sickle which was readily
available in the house and struck the deceased on his neck.
PW.6 in his evidence admitted that the accused was mentally
unsound since childhood and the deceased had taken him to
several temples to perform pooja for his illness. The accused
was treated in several hospitals for his illness. Further, to prove
this aspect, the learned counsel for the accused produced some
documents along with an application dated 27.06.2022. On
- 12 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
perusal of the documents, the same are issued by the Dharwad
Institute of Mental Health and Neuroscience, Dharwad which
showed that the accused was suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia and he was treated in the said Hospital. In such
circumstance, it can be gathered that the act committed by the
accused was not with a premeditative motive to murder his
father and also there was no preparation. The complaint and
evidence of PW.1 clearly reveals that, on the fateful day, the
deceased was insisting the accused to do some job instead of
wandering about wastefully. No one has deposed as to what
exactly were the words used by the deceased and the accused.
It could be that the accused was enraged and hence provoked
by the deceased who pulled out a sickle, which is normally
available in any rural household and struck the deceased.
Therefore it appears that, the incident happened in spur of a
moment and in a fit of rage. The accused not being a normal
person could have lost power of self control and could have
murdered the deceased.
16. In such circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of DAUVARAM NIRMALKAR vs. STATE OF
CHHATISGARH reported in AIR 2022 SC 3620 held that,
when there was a sudden loss of self control on account of the
- 13 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
"slow burn" reaction followed by the final and immediate
provocation and if there is a temporary loss of self-control as
the accused had tried to kill the deceased, then the offence has
to be considered as one committed due to a sudden and grave
provocation with the loss of self control. Hence, the conviction
was converted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part 1 of IPC.
In the above judgment by referring the judgment K.M
Nanavathi vs. State of Maharashtra 1962, held in
paragraph Nos.10, 11, 12 are as under:-
"10. Interpreting Exception 1 to the Section 300
in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, this Court
has held that the conditions which have to be
satisfied for the exception to be invoked are (a) the
deceased must have given provocation to the
accused; (b) the provocation must be grave; (c) the
provocation must be sudden; (d) the offender, by the
reason of the said provocation, should have been
deprived of his power of self-control; (e) the offender
should have killed the deceased during the
continuance of the deprivation of power of
selfcontrol; and (f) the offender must have caused
the death of the person who gave the provocation or
the death of any other person by mistake or
accident. For determining whether or not the
provocation had temporarily deprived the offender
from the power of self-control, the test to be applied
is that of a reasonable man and not that of an
unusually excitable and pugnacious individual.
Further, it must be considered whether there was
sufficient interval and time to allow the passion to
cool. K.M. Nanavati (supra) succinctly observes:
"84. Is there any standard of a
reasonable man for the application of the
- 14 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
doctrine of "grave and sudden"
provocation? No abstract standard of
reasonableness can be laid down. What a
reasonable man will do in certain
circumstances depends upon the customs,
manners, way of life, traditional values etc.;
in short, the cultural, social and emotional
background of the society to which an
accused belongs. In our vast country there
are social groups ranging from the lowest to
the highest state of civilization. It is neither
possible nor desirable to lay down any
standard with precision: it is for the court to
decide in each case, having regard to the
relevant circumstances. It is not necessary
in this case to ascertain whether a
reasonable man placed in the position of the
accused would have lost his self-control
momentarily or even temporarily when his
wife confessed to him of her illicit intimacy
with another, for we are satisfied on the
evidence that the accused regained his self-
control and killed Ahuja deliberately.
85. The Indian law, relevant to the
present enquiry, may be stated thus: (1)
The test of "grave and sudden" provocation
is whether a reasonable man, belonging to
the same class of society as the accused,
placed in the situation in which the accused
was placed would be so provoked as to lose
his self-control. (2) In India, words and
gestures may also, under certain
circumstances, cause grave and sudden
provocation to an accused so as to bring his
act within the First Exception to Section 300
of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental
background created by the previous act of
the victim may be taken into consideration
in ascertaining whether the subsequent act
caused grave and sudden provocation for
committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow
should be clearly traced to the influence of
passion arising from that provocation and
- 15 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
not after the passion had cooled down by
lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and
scope for premeditation and calculation."
11. K.M. Nanavati (supra), has held that the
mental background created by the previous act(s) of
the deceased may be taken into consideration in
ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused
sudden and grave provocation for committing the
offence. There can be sustained and continuous
provocations over a period of time, albeit in such
cases Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC applies
when preceding the offence, there was a last act,
word or gesture in the series of incidents comprising
of that conduct, amounting to sudden provocation
sufficient for reactive loss of self-control. K.M.
Nanavati (supra) quotes the definition of
'provocation' given by Goddard, C.J.; in R. v. Duffy,
as:
"...some act or series of acts, done by
the dead man to the accused which would
cause in any reasonable person, and
actually causes in the accused, a sudden
and temporary loss of self-control,
rendering the accused so subject to passion
as to make him or her for the moment not
master of his own mind...[I]ndeed,
circumstances which induce a desire for
revenge are inconsistent with provocation,
since the conscious formulation of a desire
for revenge means that the person had the
time to think, to reflect, and that would
negative a sudden temporary loss of
selfcontrol which is of the essence of
provocation...".
12. The question of loss of self-control by grave
and sudden provocation is a question of fact. Act of
provocation and loss of selfcontrol, must be actual
and reasonable. The law attaches great importance
to two things when defence of provocation is taken
under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. First,
whether there was an intervening period for the
- 16 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
passion to cool and for the accused to regain
dominance and control over his mind. Secondly, the
mode of resentment should bear some relationship to
the sort of provocation that has been given. The
retaliation should be proportionate to the
provocation. The first part lays emphasis on whether
the accused acting as a reasonable man had time to
reflect and cool down. The offender is presumed to
possess the general power of self-control of an
ordinary or reasonable man, belonging to the same
class of society as the accused, placed in the same
situation in which the accused is placed, to
temporarily lose the power of self-control. The
second part emphasises that the offender's reaction
to the provocation is to be judged on the basis of
whether the provocation was sufficient to bring about
a loss of self-control in the fact situation. Here again,
the court would have to apply the test of a
reasonable person in the circumstances. While
examining these questions, we should not be
shortsighted, and must take into account the whole
of the events, including the events on the day of the
fatality, as these are relevant for deciding whether
the accused was acting under the cumulative and
continuing stress of provocation. Gravity of
provocation turns upon the whole of the victim's
abusive behaviour towards the accused. Gravity does
not hinge upon a single or last act of provocation
deemed sufficient by itself to trigger the punitive
action. Last provocation has to be considered in light
of the previous provocative acts or words, serious
enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control.
The cumulative or sustained provocation test would
be satisfied when the accused's retaliation was
immediately preceded and precipitated by some sort
of provocative conduct, which would satisfy the
requirement of sudden or immediate provocation".
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that, the
prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused and it must
establish all the ingredients of the offence with which the
- 17 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
accused is charged, but this burden should not be mixed with
the burden on the accused of proving that the case falls within
an exception to Section 300 of IPC. However, to discharge his
burden, the accused may rely upon the case of the prosecution
and evidence adduced by the prosecution in the Court.
18. On applying the above principles to the facts and
circumstances of this case and considering the aspect that,
accused was none other than the son of deceased and the
incident may have been caused in the spur of a moment due to
sudden loss of self-control, the offence committed by the
accused clearly falls under Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC
which is punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. Hence, we
are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence
imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be modified
for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC
instead of Section 302 of IPC.
19. Before parting, we appreciate the accurate and a
thoroughly professional assistance rendered by the Amicus
Curiae Smt. Anuradha R. Deshpande and the same is placed on
the record.
- 18 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
20. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 raised above in
the negative and point No.2 as partly affirmative and proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The criminal appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The judgment of conviction dated
29.07.2019 and order of sentence dated
31.07.2019 passed in S.C.No.71/2016 by
the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Haveri, Sitting at Ranebennur is hereby
modified to Section 304 Part I of IPC
instead of Section 302 of IPC.
iii. The accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part I of
IPC.
iv. The appellant/accused is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 10
years and he shall pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 304 part I of IPC and in
default, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months.
v. The accused is entitled for benefit of set
off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
- 19 -
CRL.A No.100109 OF 2021
vi. The Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority is directed to pay Rs.20,000/-
to Smt. Anuradha R. Deshpande, learned
Amicus Curiae for the appellant, who has
assisted the Court in this matter.
vii. Registry is directed to send back the trial
Court records along with the certified
copy of this judgment to the concerned
Court, forthwith.
SD/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
CT:PA
