Karnataka High Court
Ravi Alias Raviraj S/O. Umakant ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100131 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
RAVI @ RAVIRAJ S/O. UMAKANT DANDAVATIMATH,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC.: PRIEST,
R/O. 6762, SECTOR NO.9,
ANJANEYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-591108.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
Digitally signed
by YASHAVANT THROUGH MAL MARUTI POLICE STATION,
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.06.12
13:00:37 +0530 BELAGAVI-590016.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWAD, ASPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C
1973., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SECTION CASE
NO.182/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND BELAGAVI, PERUSE THE SAME, ALLOW
THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
DATED 06.12.2022 AND SENTENCE DATED 13.12.2022 PASSED
AGAINST THE APPELLANT 302 IPC AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
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 06.12.2022 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2022
passed in Sessions Case No.182/2018 by the Prl. District and
Sessions Judge at Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the
'learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC.
2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows:
The deceased Dr.Umakant in the instant case is the
father of PW.1-Rashmi Vishal Halagatti and accused-Ravi is her
younger brother. The deceased-Umakant had transferred 10
guntas of land in Sambra village in the name of accused and
desired to construct a commercial complex by raising loan from
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
the Bank for the benefit of accused. However, accused was not
ready to sign the loan papers. In this connection, there were
frequent tussles between the deceased and the accused.
Against this backdrop, on 31.01.2018 accused quarreled with
deceased. The said aspect was informed by the deceased to
PW.1 on the following day morning i.e., on 01.02.2018 that
there is a danger to his life by accused.
3. When things stood thus, on 02.02.2018 at about
00.30 hours, accused came to the house of PW.1 and informed
her that there was a theft in his house and the miscreants have
done away the life of their father-deceased. When PW.1 rushed
to the house, she found her father (deceased) was severely
injured and lying in a pool of blood. On enquiry with
neighbours, she came to know about the involvement of
accused in the crime. Hence, she lodged the complaint against
him before the Malmaruti Police Station as per Ex.P1. On the
strength of Ex.P1, PW.32-Investigating Officer registered the
FIR in Crime No.16/2018 against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Subsequently, PW.32
apprehended the accused on the same day and conducted
further investigation in the case and recorded the statement of
material witnesses and drawn the relevant mahazars. On
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authorities,
handed over the same to PW.33 for further investigation,
PW.33 laid the charge sheet against the accused before the
committal Court for the aforementioned offence.
4. Post committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the learned Sessions Judge after securing the presence
of the accused, fram2ed the charges against him for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and read over the
same to him. However, he denied the charges and claimed to
be tried.
5. In order to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, the prosecution examined 34 witnesses as PW.1 to
PW.34, marked 69 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P69 and identified
23 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.23.
6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the
learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of
material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313
of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defence
of the accused is of absolute denial and that of false
implication.
7. Following the assessment of oral and documentary
evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned
Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the charges
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
levelled against him and sentenced him as stated supra. The
said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged
in this appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel Sri Santosh
Pujar for the appellant and the learned Addl. SPP Sri.
M.B.Gundawadi for the respondent-State. We have also
perused the records of the trial Court.
9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant/accused is that the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers from
perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has
grossly erred while convicting the appellant without duly
appreciating the evidence and documents placed before him.
He contended that, the learned Sessions Judge failed to take
judicial note of the fact that the complainant was most
interested witness and in order to grab the landed property of
her father i.e., deceased, she lodged a false complaint against
her brother i.e., accused. He further contended that, there are
material contradictions in the evidence of PW.1-the
complainant, PWs.6 and 7-the neighbors who have deposed
about the presence of accused in the house of deceased at
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
relevant time on the date of incident. According to the learned
counsel, the evidence of these witnesses are contradictory to
each other. Additionally, the learned counsel contended that
the Investigating Officer falsely implicated the accused in the
crime at the instance of PW.1. The said aspect prima facie
forthcoming in the charge sheet materials. According to the
learned counsel, absolutely there is no basis for apprehension
of accused except the suspicion expressed by PW.1 against the
accused after the incident. On the other hand, the Investigation
Officer has failed to investigate in other angles with respect to
commission of the murder of deceased by other culprits for
gain by committing burglary/house breaking. He also
contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
motive for the commission of crime and recovery of weapon
said to have been used for the commission of crime at the
instance of accused. With these submissions, he prays to allow
the appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned Addl. State Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State contended that, judgment
under this appeal neither suffers from perversity nor illegality
as the learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined the
evidence on record and passed a well-reasoned judgment which
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
does not call for any interference. According to the learned
Addl. SPP, the homicidal death of deceased in his house is not
disputed by the accused. It is also undisputed fact that the
accused was residing along with deceased at the time of
incident and prior to the incident. Further, the evidence of
PWs.12 and 13-the relatives of the deceased and accused and
PW.14 clearly establishes that, prior to the incident, the
accused was quarrelling with the deceased regarding raising
loan for construction of a commercial complex. Further, the
evidence of PWs.6, 7 and 9 also establishes the presence of the
accused in the house and accused leaving the house soon
thereafter. In such circumstance, the homicidal death of the
deceased was well within the special knowledge of accused and
he is duty bound to explain that, if he has not committed the
murder of his father, who else committed the same as
contemplated under the provision of Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The learned Addl. SPP also contended that the
prosecution has proved the recovery of M.Os.19, 21 and 22
i.e., the weapon used for commission of crime by the accused
i.e., M.O.19, shirt and pant of the accused worn at the time of
incident as per M.Os.21 and 22 under Ex.P11. The recovery
mahazar witness-PW.3 has supported the case of prosecution.
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
Further, M.Os.21 and 22 were sent for FSL and on chemical
examination, the presence of chilli powder on M.Os.21 and 22
was detected. The said aspect was clearly deposed by PW.31-
the Scientific Officer along with his report as per Ex.P57. In
such circumstance, the oral testimony of the material witnesses
corroborated the medical and scientific evidence. Hence,
according to the learned Addl. SPP, the prosecution has
successfully proved each and every circumstance against the
accused by pointing out the guilt of the accused. In that view of
the matter, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the
accused in a well reasoned judgment which does not call for
any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and after perusing the entire evidence on record, the
points that would arise for our consideration are:
i. "Whether the judgment under this appeal
suffers from any perversity or illegality
and interference in the order passed by
the Sessions Court is called for by this
Court?"
ii. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC?"
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
12. Before analyzing the evidence on record, this case
rests upon circumstantial evidence. As per the settled position
of law in the case of Sarbir Singh v. State of Punjab
reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 41, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held in Paragraph No.6 as under:
"6. It is said that men lie but circumstances
do not. Under the circumstances prevailing in
the society today, it is not true in many cases.
Sometimes the circumstances which are sought
to be proved against the accused for purpose of
establishing the charge are planted by the
elements hostile to the accused who find out
witnesses to fill up the gaps in the chain of
circumstances. In countries having sophisticated
modes of investigation, every trace left behind
by the culprit can be followed and pursued
immediately. Unfortunately it is not available in
many parts of this country. That is why courts
have insisted
(i) the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should in the first instance be fully
established;
(ii) all the facts so established
should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilty of the accused
and should be such as to exclude
every hypothesis but the one sought to
be proved;
(iii) the circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature; and
(iv) the chain of evidence should
not have any reasonable ground for a
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused".
13. The principles enunciated in the above case was
also reiterated in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 which
laid the golden principles to prove the case based on
circumstantial evidence. The said principles also reiterated in
the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Shankar v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 268, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
summarized the guidelines to convict the accused in cases
which are based on circumstantial evidences.
14. Keeping in mind the above enunciated principles,
when we analyze the evidence on record, so also the
congregate of circumstances, the following aspects stand out
for our consideration:-
Homicidal death of deceased Dr. Umakant.
15. To prove the homicidal death of deceased in the
instant case, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of
PW.16-the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy on the
body of the deceased and issued postmortem report as per
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
Ex.P26. On careful examination of Ex.P26, PW.16 has opined
that the cause of death is due to "Brain injury sustained by
blunt force impact". He further stated that all the injuries are
ante-mortem in nature. Nevertheless, the weapon seized at the
instance of accused, which was used for the commission of
offence as per MO.19 was examined by the Doctor who opined
that the injuries found on the body could be caused if assaulted
with MO.19. Additionally, the prosecution also relied on inquest
panchanama conducted on the body of deceased by PW.32.
PW.2 is the Panch witness for the same. Both these witnesses
have identified the injuries on the body of deceased and
deposed that those injuries are ante-mortem in nature. On a
collective reading of the above evidence, we are of the
considered view that the prosecution has proved the homicidal
death of deceased beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused was residing along with the deceased
at the time of incident.
16. The accused is the son of deceased and brother of
PW.1. This relationship is not disputed by the accused. The
accused also not disputed that he was residing along with the
deceased. The wife of deceased had expired much prior to the
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
incident. The accused after discontinuing his MBBS Course, had
become an Archaka/priest in a Durga Temple situated in the
ground floor of the house where he and the deceased were
residing. Hence, it is proved that, prior to the incident and at
the time of incident only the accused and deceased were
residing together.
(Motive for the incident) Prior to the incident, the
relationship between the accused and deceased was
strained, as the deceased was forcing accused to sign
papers to raise a loan to construct a commercial complex
on a plot that stood in the name of accused.
17. PW.1 being the sister of accused and daughter of
deceased has categorically stated in her evidence that the
deceased and accused were not on good terms due to disputes
in connection with obtaining a loan for construction of a
commercial complex on the landed property that stood in the
name of accused. She further deposed that, on 01.02.2018 i.e.,
the date of incident in the morning hours at about 9:00 a.m.,
the deceased met her on the way to his clinic. At that time, he
informed her that the accused was threatening him in the
house and there is a serious threat to him by the accused. This
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
version of PW.1 corroborated the evidence of PWs.12, 13 and
14. All these witnesses have categorically stated that the
accused was not in good terms with deceased and was
quarrelling with regard to obtaining loan for construction of
complex. Admittedly, there is no ill-will between the accused,
PWs.1, 12 to 14 to depose falsely against him. In such
circumstance, the prosecution has proved this circumstance
beyond reasonable doubt.
Soon before the incident, the accused was present
in the house and nobody else visited/entered the house
of deceased at the relevant date and time and there was
no sign of burglary/house breaking witnessed by the
Police.
18. As discussed supra, the prosecution has proved that
the accused and deceased were residing together. Additionally,
the prosecution also proved that, soon before the incident i.e.,
at about 7:45 p.m. on 01.02.2018 the accused was seen at his
house by PWs.6 and 7. Both these witnesses are the immediate
neighbors of the deceased and accused. According to them, on
01.02.2018 at about 7:45 p.m. they both saw the accused
standing on the terrace of his house, while they were coming
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
out from their respective houses for a evening walk. Thereafter,
while they were returning, they saw the accused leaving the
house in his car at high speed and the scooter of the deceased
was parked in front of his house. Though the defence counsel
cross-examined these witnesses at length, nothing worthwhile
was elicited from them to discard their testimony. It is
pertinent to mention at this juncture, PW.6 the immediate
neighbour of the deceased has stated in his evidence, on the
day of the incident at about 12:00 midnight, the accused
visited his house and informed him that somebody has
committed the murder of his father and robbed valuables from
his house. The Investigation Officer recovered the footage of
CCTV recording in the house of PW.11 and the same was
marked at Ex.P49. This footage revealed that the deceased
entered the house at 08:22 p.m. and thereafter the accused
left at 08:57 p.m. and returned back to house at 11:29 p.m. He
again left the house at 11:44 p.m. to inform PW.1 about the
incident. Except the movement of the accused, no one else
entered the house of deceased from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00
midnight. Further, during the course of investigation, the Police
did not see any sign of theft or burglary in the house of
deceased. In such circumstance, the evidence of PWs.6 and 7
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
clearly establishes that the accused was alone in the house at
the time of incident and none else had entered the house.
Recovery of weapon used for commission of crime
and cloths of accused worn at the time of commission of
crime based on his voluntary statement and matching of
origin of blood stains and chilli powder found on weapon
and cloths of the accused by scientific examination.
19. After apprehending the accused, the Investigation
Officer recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per
Ex.P61. Based on the same, the weapon used for the
commission of the crime i.e., MO.19 and the blood stained
cloths of the accused worn at the time of incident i.e., MOs.21
and 22 have been seized under Ex.P11. PW.3 is the witness for
the same and he supported the case of prosecution and
deposed that the accused took the Police and him to a place
near Dhanaamma Devi Gudi, Mahatma Phule Road and shown
the shirt, pant and the crowbar in a bush and the same were
seized under mahazar Ex.P11. The learned counsel for the
accused vehemently contended that the recovery of material
objects have not been proved as per law. Be that as it may, the
Investigation Officer sent these material objects for chemical
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
examination along with the blood drawn from the body of the
deceased. On examination, the Scientific Officer opined that the
blood stains found on these articles matches with the blood of
deceased. It is equally important to note that the Doctor who
conducted the autopsy has opined that the injuries found on
the body of deceased could be possible if the assault is made
by MO.19-crowbar. In such circumstance, the recovery of these
articles at the instance of the accused clearly connects the
accused in the crime. The contention urged by the accused to
discredit the recovery are all believed by the evidence of PW.2
who deposed that it was the accused who led the investigation
team to the place where M.Os.19, 21 and 22 were discarded
and from where they were recovered. It is important to note
that, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused
before assaulting the deceased, threw chilli powder on his face.
On chemical examination of M.Os.21 and 22 i.e., the shirt and
pant, the presence of chilli powder was detected by FSL Officer-
PW.31. Hence, in our considered opinion the prosecution also
proved this circumstance.
20. On careful analysis of the above circumstance, the
accused failed to explain the homicidal death of the deceased in
the house where he and the deceased were residing. In our
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
view, these circumstances establish the guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the evidence placed by
the prosecution completes the chain of circumstance without
leaving any suspicion by proving beyond reasonable doubt that
in all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
21. Learned counsel for the accused vehemently
contended that the evidence of PW.1 cannot be relied since she
is the daughter of deceased and in order to inherit all the
properties of the deceased, she foisted a false case against the
accused. We are afraid and unable to accept the contention of
the learned counsel for the simple reason that PW.1 had given
her no objection to transfer 10 guntas of land to the accused.
Nevertheless, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be discarded solely
on the ground that she is the daughter of deceased. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravasahebgouda Alias
Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023)
5 SCC 391, held that the evidence of sole related eyewitness
can be the basis for conviction, particularly when there is no
vagueness in his/her testimony with respect to the act
committed by the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Paragraph No.17 of the said judgment held that:
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
"17. It is clear that it is the quality and not the
quantity of the witnesses that matters. Further
in Paragraph No.25 of the said judgment, it is
stated that "a witness being a close relative is
not a ground enough to reject his/her
testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even
"partisan" or "interested" witness may lead to
failure of justice. The principle of "falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus" is not one of the general
applications".
22. The learned counsel for the accused also raised a
contention that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the
material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 6, 7, 9 and 12 to 14 which goes
to the root of the prosecution case. However, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mallikarjun and Ors. v. State of
Karnataka reported in (2019) 8 SCC 359 has held that the
minor contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses itself
is not a ground to discard their testimony. Further, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that while appreciating the evidence of a
witness, the approach must be to assess whether the evidence
of a witness read as a whole appears to be truthful. Once the
impression is formed, it is necessary for the Court to evaluate
the evidence and the alleged discrepancies and then, to find out
whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case.
If the evidence of witness is found to be credible and
trustworthy, minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 100131 OF 2023
the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to doubt the
trustworthiness of the witness.
23. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record,
in our considered view, the prosecution has successfully proved
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In that view
of the matter, interference in the impugned judgment is not
called for. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the negative
and point No.2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No.100131/2023 is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
Ct:pa
