Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Zhareppa S/O Manikappa Warwatti And Anr on 26 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200061 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE POLICE,
BAGDAL POLICE STATION.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
AND:
1. ZHAREPPA
Digitally signed
by S/O MANIKAPPA WARWATTI,
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ AGED 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE,
DHUTTARGAON
R/O. VILLAGE BAGDAL,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TQ & DIST. BIDAR.
KARNATAKA
2. VIJAY KUMAR
S/O MANIKAPPA WARVATTI,
AGED 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BAGDAL, TQ. BIDAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NANDAKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED:13.01.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR IN SPECIAL CASE NO.120/2014
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 R/W 34
OF IPC WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT WAS PLEASED TO
ACQUIT THE ACCUSED; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 13.01.2015 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.120/2014 BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BIDAR, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/ RESPONDENT FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.
AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 R/W
34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
CRL.A No. 200061 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
The State is in appeal, questioning the judgment of
acquittal passed by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, at Bidar, in S.C.No.120/2014, whereby the
respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
of IPC.
2. We have heard the learned Additional SPP
appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing
for respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2. Perused the
evidence and material on record.
3. The prosecution has alleged that, on
03.01.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., near tea-stall of one
Mukesh Kambar at Bagdal village, accused Nos.1 and 2
picked up quarrel with deceased - Anil Kumar and
assaulted him on his chest and abdomen with hands and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
kicked him, on account of which he sustained fatal injuries
and died in the hospital on 04.01.2014 at 03.15 a.m.
4. A written complaint was lodged by PW.1,
brother of the deceased - Anil Kumar, as per Ex.P1 at
Bagdal Police Station. PW.18 - P.S.I., based on the said
complaint, registered a case against accused Nos.1 and 2
and prepared the FIR - Ex.P1 and forwarded it to the
jurisdictional Magistrate.
5. PW.21 - C.P.I., Rural Circle Bidar, took over the
investigation and conducted inquest panchanama as per
Ex.P4 and also spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. The statements
of the witnesses were recorded. The dead body was
subjected to post-mortem examination by the Doctor -
PW.19. The articles collected during the investigation
were sent for FSL examination and on completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
6. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges
against the accused for the offence punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, for which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to establish the guilt of the accused,
the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 22 and got marked
Ex.P1 to P18 and M.Os.1 to 5.
8. The defence of the accused was one of total
denial, however, they did not choose to lead any evidence
on their behalf.
9. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned
judgment held that, the prosecution has not proved the
guilt of the accused and acquitted them of the charged
offence.
10. The learned Additional SPP has contended that,
the prosecution has adduced cogent evidence to establish
the charges leveled against the accused, by examining the
eye-witnesses and therefore, the trial Court was not
justified in recording an order of acquittal. He contended
that PWs.1, 7 to 9, 12 to 14 have deposed having seen
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
both the accused, not only quarrelling with the deceased,
but also assaulting him. The victim was shifted to the
hospital immediately after the incident, but he died in the
hospital, while undergoing treatment. He has therefore
contended that, even if there was no intention on the part
of the accused to commit murder, there is sufficient
material to show that the accused had a knowledge that
the injuries caused to the deceased was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature, to cause his death. He further
contended that, the injuries noticed in the post-mortem
report clearly shows that there was nexus between the
incident and the death of the deceased and therefore, the
learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in
acquitting the accused.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2 has contended
that, the prosecution has suppressed the material facts
and the genesis of the incident. He contended that the
deceased was admitted to the hospital with a history of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
chest pain and nowhere it is stated that there was any
such incident of assault, which resulted in deceased
sustaining injuries. The cause of death is on account of
head injury, whereas the witnesses have not stated that
the accused have assaulted the deceased on his head. He
further contended that the deceased had consumed
alcohol, which is evident from the record and therefore, he
falling down under the influence of alcohol and sustaining
injuries to his head noticed in the post-mortem report is
not ruled out. He contended that the accused are falsely
implicated and the trial Court having appreciated the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the right
perspective, has acquitted the accused after giving cogent
and valid reasons. He submitted that this being an appeal
preferred against the judgment of acquittal, the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is
further strengthened and therefore, sought to dismiss the
appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
12. It is the case of the prosecution that on
03.01.2014 at about 7:30 p.m., near the tea-stall of one
Mukesh Kambar at Bagdal village, the accused picked up
quarrel with deceased Anil Kumar, pushed him to the
ground and assaulted with hands and kicked with legs, due
to which he suffered fatal head injuries and later died in
the hospital while undergoing treatment, on 04.01.2014 at
03:15 a.m.
13. The complaint as per Ex.P1 is lodged by the
brother of the deceased, who is examined as PW.1. In
Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated that on 03.01.2014, his deceased
brother had been to the funeral ceremony of one of their
relative by name Sundramma and after returning home,
he took bath and went to a hotel situated near Hanuman
Mandir, at about 7:30 p.m., and he followed him. When
he reached the hotel, he saw both accused Nos.1 and 2
abusing and fisting the deceased on his chest and
assaulting him. His brother fell down and sustained
injuries near his left eye and back of his head, at that
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
time, he along with Gundappa (PW.8), Mallappa (PW.9)
and Hanumanth (PW.7) pacified the quarrel and shifted his
brother in an auto to CHC Mannaekhelli Government
Hospital for treatment, as he was complaining of chest
pain. The doctor present there advised them to take him
to District Hospital, Bidar and therefore, they shifted him
to the said Hospital. However, he died at about 03.15
a.m., on 04.01.2014.
14. According to prosecution, PWs.1, 7 to 9, 12 to
14 are the eye-witnesses, who were present at the spot
and witnessed the incident.
15. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses,
it is relevant to see as to what was the information
furnished to the Hospital at the time of admission of the
victim and also the cause of death.
16. As per PM report - Ex.P.12 issued by PW.19,
death was on account of shock and hemorrhage due to
head injury.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
17. The following injuries are noticed :-
I. Lacerated injury measuring ½ inch x ¼ inch
on left eyebrow, perhaps on the medial
aspect.
II. Contused abrasion measuring ½ inch x ¼
inch on the occipital region.
III. Lacerated injuries measuring ½ inch x ¼
inch on left elbow joint.
18. PW.19 has stated that the above injuries were
ante mortem in nature. In the cross-examination, he has
stated that the injuries could be caused on account of
accidental fall on the hard surface from moving
motorcycle. Further, normal course of consumption of
alcohol leads to high B.P. that would lead to heart-attack,
but in the instant case, no such symptoms were found. He
has stated that if a person is pushed on the ground, such
injuries could be caused.
19. Contention of learned counsel for the
respondents was that the deceased had consumed alcohol
at the time of incident and he fell down on the ground and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
sustained head injury, which might have led to his death.
Attention of the Court was drawn to Ex.P.13 i.e., the case-
sheet pertaining to the District Hospital, Bidar. A perusal
of Ex.P.13 goes to show that the deceased had consumed
alcohol at around 02.00 p.m. Further, PW.20 who treated
him at BRIMS, at Bidar, in his cross-examination has
stated that the deceased was under the influence of
alcohol and he had noticed alcoholic smell from his mouth.
20. From the above evidence on record, it can be
safely gathered that the deceased sustained certain
external injuries and the cause of death was on account of
head injury sustained by him. Further, he was under the
influence of alcohol, when he was examined by the Doctor
- PW.20.
21. The incident took place at about 7.30 p.m., on
03.01.2014. According to prosecution, immediately after
the incident, the deceased was shifted to Mannaekhelli
Government Hospital, in an auto-rickshaw. PW.10, auto-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
rickshaw driver has deposed that at about 12.30 a.m., as
per the request of PW.1, he took Anil Kumar i.e., the
deceased to CHC Mannaekhelli, where treatment was
provided to him and then he was taken to Government
Hospital, Bidar in an ambulance.
22. The prosecution has not placed any records
pertaining to Mannaekhelli Hospital to show as to what
was the earliest information given to the Doctor in the said
Hospital, when the victim was taken to the said hospital.
In a case of this nature, the Hospital Authorities are bound
to inform the Police when any person is brought to the
Hospital with a history of assault and to send MLC
intimation. No such intimation was sent. Further, a perusal
of Ex.P.13 i.e., the case-sheet pertaining to District
Hospital, Bidar, shows, at 01.56 a.m. on 04.01.2014, the
victim was admitted in the said Hospital, however, there is
no mention of any history furnished to the said Hospital
stating that the deceased sustained injuries on account of
the assault. On the other hand, history furnished was of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
chest pain. Even no MLC intimation was sent from the
said Hospital to the jurisdictional Police. Admittedly, a
written complaint was lodged at about 09.30 a.m., on
04.01.2014, obviously, after Anil Kumar died in the
hospital at about 03.15 a.m.
23. As per Ex.P.1, it is PW.1 along with PWs.7, 8
and 9 shifted the victim to the hospital. If there was any
incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place,
wherein the accused had assaulted the deceased and
inflicted injuries as stated by the witnesses, nothing
prevented them to inform the hospital Authority while
furnishing history, at the time of admission of the victim.
Hence, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court
as to the genesis of the incident as projected by the
prosecution and in this background, it is necessary to
examine the evidence of the eye-witnesses.
24. PW.1 has deposed that both accused Nos.1 and
2 picked up quarrel with his brother Anil Kumar, abused
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
him in filthy language as to why he obstructed a lorry
loaded with sugarcane and accused No.2 caught hold his
shirt collar and accused No.1 fisted with hands on his
chest, stomach and left side of the eyebrow, on account of
which his brother fell on the ground and both the accused
sat on his body and assaulted him with hands. The other
eye-witnesses namely PWs.7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 have
given different versions with regard to the incident. PW.7
has stated that he saw the quarrel between accused and
deceased and they were pushing each other. He along with
CWs.14 and 15 intervened and pacified the quarrel. He
has stated that he has not witnessed deceased falling on
the ground and accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting him.
25. Similar is the evidence of PWs.8 and 9. They
have also stated that they saw accused Nos.1, 2 and
deceased quarrelling and pushing each other and not
witnessed accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting the deceased.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
26. PW.12 has stated that the accused and
deceased were pushing and assaulting each other with
hands, on account of which Anil Kumar fell on the ground
and he noticed injuries on his eyebrow and head. He has
also not stated that after the deceased fell down, accused
have assaulted him.
27. PW.13 has also stated that he saw the accused
and deceased quarrelling and pushing each other. He has
specifically stated that he has not witnessed the deceased
falling on the ground or accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting
him with hands.
28. According to PW.14, he saw the deceased and
accused Nos.1 and 2 quarrelling and pushing each other,
on account of which the deceased fell on the ground and
accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him with hands on his
chest, left side of the eyebrow and he sustained injuries on
the head. After the deceased fell on the ground, accused
Nos.1 and 2 kicked the deceased with their legs. The said
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
evidence of PW.14 is totally contrary to the evidence of
other eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution.
29. It is relevant to see that, when the name of
CWs.8, 9 and 10 were specifically mentioned in Ex.P1, the
name of PW.14 is missing. In the cross examination, he
has admitted that he was working as a driver and he
owned a Maxi cab and deceased was working as a
conductor in the said Maxi cab for about 11 years and
since he was a servant, he had good relationship with him.
30. In view of the evidence of PWs.7, 8, 9, 12 and
13, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.14 that they saw the
accused kicking the deceased with their legs and
assaulting him with the hands on his chest, left side of his
eyebrow etc., is hard to believe. All the witnesses,
according to prosecution were present at the spot when
the incident took place. When PWs.7 to 9, 12 and 13 have
not specifically stated that the accused have assaulted the
deceased with hands and kicked him when he fell down
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
and caused injuries to his eyebrow and head, the evidence
of PW.1 and PW.14 that, they saw the accused assaulting
the deceased on his chest etc., and caused injuries to his
left eye and head, is difficult to accept.
31. From the evidence of PW.20, it is crystal clear
that the deceased had consumed alcohol. From the
evidence and material on record, it can be seen that there
was a quarrel between the accused as well as the
deceased and in the said quarrel they pushed each other.
Probably the deceased who had consumed alcohol, fell
down and sustained injuries, as noticed in the post-
mortem report. It cannot be said that there was any
intention on the part of the accused or they had
knowledge that by pushing, the deceased would sustain
such injuries which are noticed in the post-mortem report,
resulting in his death.
32. The learned Sessions Judge having appreciated
the evidence and material on record has come to the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3426-DB
HC-KAR
conclusion that there could be exchange of words between
the accused and deceased, that led to pushing each other
and therefore, no intention on the part of the accused
could be gathered to hold that they had an intention to
commit the murder and even otherwise, the accused could
not be attributable of voluntarily causing injury to the
deceased.
33. We find that the reasons assigned by the trial
Court are not illegal or perverse, so as to reverse the said
findings. No interference is called for in the appeal. Hence,
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
MCR, AT, KJJ/MCR
