Karnataka High Court
Bhimappa S/O Mallappa Bingi vs The State Of Karntaka on 26 November, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
CRL.A No. 100335 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100335 OF 2022 (C)
BETWEEN:
BHIMAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA BINGI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLI,
R/O. NAREGAL JOGIYAVAR ONI,
TALUKA: RON, DIST. GADAG.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A. R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY. ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
RON CIRCLE POLICE STATION, RON, GADAG DISTRICT.
Digitally signed
by V N
BADIGER ...RESPONDENT
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI. M. B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. S.P.P.)
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 30.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN S.C.NO.47/2019
AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 13.10.2025, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
CRL.A No. 100335 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2021 passed
in S.C.No.47/2019 on the file of learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Gadag (for short, 'the trial court') against
the accused/appellant, for the offences under Sections 498A
and 302 of IPC.
2. Originally, a case in Crime No.1/2019 was registered
at Naregal Police Station against the accused herein and
four others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 302 of IPC in connection with murder of one Smt.
Uma on 06.01.2019 at 7.30 a.m., based on a complaint lodged
by one Smt. Tayavva Singatalakeri. Upon completion of the
investigation, the Circle Inspector of Police of Ron laid a
charge sheet only against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and dropped
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
other four accused persons from the case for want of
incriminating materials to support their involvement in the crime.
Based on the charge sheet, the jurisdictional magistrate took
cognizance of the alleged offences and committed the case for
trial after complying with Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
3. On receipt of the record, the trial Court registered a
case against the accused in S.C.No.47/2019, secured his
presence, and framed the charge against him for the alleged
offences. The accused pleaded not guilty. Afterwards, the case
was tried and disposed of on merits of the case vide impugned
judgment wherein the accused was held guilty of the offences
under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and he was sentenced to
undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-
for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and life imprisonment
and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
4. The trial court, based on evidence of PW-1, PW-2,
PW-6 and PW-7, held that the accused suspected the fidelity of
the deceased and ill-treated her physically and mentally despite
advice by PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, and the elders of the village.
Further, relying on the evidence of PW-2 and corroborative
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 to PW-8, coupled with
the failure on the part of the accused to offer any explanation
regarding the cause of the death of his wife, the trial court held
that the accused has committed the murder of his wife,
suspecting her fidelity.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction
and sentence, the accused has come up this appeal on the
ground that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
is contrary to law, the evidence on record, and probabilities of
the case. According to him, the trial court did not consider the
medical report and committed a serious error in relying on highly
interested versions of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 to PW-6. It is
submitted that the trial court did not consider the statements of
PW-5, before whom the accused said to have made extra judicial
confession. Thus, the accused has contended that the entire
approach adopted by the trial court is illegal and erroneous and,
as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
6. During the course of argument, Sri A.R.Patil, learned
Counsel for the Accused, apart from urging the grounds put forth
in the appeal memo, relied on the judgment in Harijanara
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
Kumar Vs State by Circle Police Inspector, Gonikoppa,
reported in 2020 (4) KCCR 3189 (DB), and submitted that the
initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the case against the
accused, and the said burden of proof never shifts to the accused
when the prosecution itself fails to discharge it. He further
submitted that however grave the suspicion may be, it cannot
amount to proof, and mere presumption is not sufficient to
convict the accused. He has contended that in the present case
the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the
case through direct or circumstantial evidence, and as such, the
accused is entitled for acquittal in the case.
7. Per Contra, Sri M.B.Gundawade, learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has
proved the guilt of the accused through material witnesses and
by adducing sufficient evidence on record. He submitted that
PW-2, who is an eyewitness to the incident, has supported the
prosecution's case and that the prosecution has adduced ample
other evidence on record which inspire confidence to rely on, and
thereby has proved their case beyond any reasonable doubt
regarding the guilt of the accused.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to
have a cursory look at the basic facts of the prosecution case and
the evidence adduced by them before the trial court in support of
their case.
8.1 The case of the prosecution is that deceased Smt.
Uma and the accused are husband and wife, whose marriage had
taken place about 12 years prior to the date of incident. They
had three children and PW-2 is the eldest amongst them. It is
alleged that the accused was suspecting fidelity of his wife and
ill-treating her, physically and mentally, despite the advice of the
elders. It is further case of the prosecution that on 06.01.2019 at
7.30 a.m., the accused picked up a quarrel with his wife in their
house situated in Jogiyavara Oni, Naregal and with an intention
of killing her, he assaulted his wife with an axe on the back of
her neck and left cheek, due to which the wife of the accused
sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot.
8.2 In support of their case, the prosecution has
examined altogether 12 witnesses and got marked 23 documents
and 13 material objects before the trial court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
8.3 PW-1 Smt. Tayavva Singatalakeri is the mother of
the deceased and the de-facto complainant. In her evidence,
PW-1 has affirmed that the accused was ill-treating his wife i.e,
the deceased, physically and mentally, in spite of advice to mend
his ways. She has further stated that on hearing about the
incident, she and her relatives had gone to the house of the
accused, wherein they saw the dead body of the deceased lying
in a pool of blood inside the house of the accused. She has also
deposed about lodging of a complaint with Naregal Police as per
Ex.P1 and thereafter the police having recovered the axe marked
as MO-1 from the scene of crime, by drawing a mahazar in her
presence.
8.4 PW-2 Kumari Vaishnavi is the daughter of the
deceased and the accused. In her evidence, PW-2 has reiterated
that the accused was ill-treating her mother physically in spite
advice of the elders. She has further stated that on the relevant
date and time, when she was in sleep, she heard the scream of
her mother and on getting up, she saw the accused assaulting
her mother with an axe, her mother falling down and dead.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
8.5 PW-3 Shri Vidyadhar Doddamani is the witness to
the inquest mahazar marked at Ex.P2, spot mahazar marked at
Ex.P3 and seizure mahazars marked at Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. He has
spoken about his presence at the time of drawing up of all these
mahazars and having observed the procedures conducted during
these mahazars
8.6 PW-4 Sri Basavaraj Jogi is a person, residing in the
neighborhood of the accused. In his deposition, PW-4 has stated
that on the particular date and time, on hearing a shout, he had
gone near the house of the accused, wherein he saw the accused
having assaulted the deceased with an axe and his running away
from the place by throwing the axe at the plot. PW-4 has further
stated that on going to the entrance hall of the house, he found
the deceased lying dead with injuries on her neck and left cheek,
inflicted with an axe.
8.7 It is the case of the prosecution that the accused
had confessed his crime before CW-7 namely Sri Irappa Jogi,
who later on brought the accused to the police station and
produced him before the concerned police. The prosecution has
examined the said person as PW-5. However, he has not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
supported the case of the prosecution except stating that about
two years one day morning he had come to know that the
accused has killed his wife.
8.8 PW-6 Sri Renukappa Singatalakeri is the younger
brother and PW-7 Sri Ramanna Shingatalakeri is the uncle of the
deceased. In their evidence, both PW-6 and PW-7 have testified
that the accused was ill-treating the deceased by suspecting her
fidelity and that the accused had not changed his behavior in
spite of the counseling through the elders. They have further
stated that on hearing about the incident, they had gone to the
house of the accused and found the deceased lying dead in the
pool of blood inside the house of the accused, with injuries on
her head and neck.
8.9 PW-8 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem
on the dead body of the deceased. In his evidence PW-8 Dr.
Anwar Samudri has stated about the external appearance and
external injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. He has
specifically stated that the deceased had been hacked to death
with a sharp object and opined that her death was due to shock
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
and hemorrhage caused by deep cut and lacerated wounds on
face, skull and neck.
8.10 PW-9 Sri Ravindra Yaligar is the Assistant Engineer of
PWD. He has stated in pursuance of a requisition received from
the office of the Investigating Officer, he visited the spot of the
crime along with PC 507 and based on information provided by
PC 507 and verifying the place, he prepared the spot sketch as
per Ex.P9 and forwarded the same to the Investigating Officer
through his office.
8.11 PW-10 Dr.Mahadeshwar Swamy is the Forensic
Expert. In his evidence, PW-10 has stated that as per the orders
of the Director of RFSL, he subjected 13 articles pertaining to
this case to chemical examination and submitted a detailed
report as per Ex.P10.
8.12 PW-11 Sri Krishnappa was working as ASI in
Naregal Police Station at the relevant point of time. In this
evidence, PW-11 has stated that on 6.1.2019 at 10-00 a.m.,
when he was on duty in Naregal Police Station, PW-1 came to
the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 and that
on receiving the said compliant, he registered a case in Crime
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
No.1/2019, forwarded FIR to the concerned and then handed
over the record to CW-25 for further investigation in the case.
8.13 PW-12 Sri Manjunath Naduvinamani is the
Investigating Officer in the case. He was working as Circle
Inspector of Police of Ron Police Station at the relevant point of
time. In his evidence PW-12 has deposed in detail regarding the
investigation conducted by him in the case from the stage of
drawing up of inquest mahazar at the spot till filing of the charge
sheet.
8.14 After the prosecution concluded their evidence, the
trial court has recorded the statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., during which the accused has denied all the
incriminating evidence appearing against him as false. Further,
the accused has not adduced any defense evidence.
9. On careful scrutiny of the evidence placed on record
by the prosecution before the trial court, it becomes clear that
there is no dispute regarding the following factual aspects of the
case, i.e., (1) the accused and the deceased, Smt.Uma were the
husband and wife; (2) the accused and the deceased had three
children, including PW-2, who was the eldest; (3) the accused
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
was residing in a house situated at Naregal along with the
deceased and their three children; and (4) on 06.01.2019 at
07.30 a.m., the dead body of the deceased was found lying in
the entrance hall of the accused's house at Naregal, in a pool of
blood with injuries on her neck and face. During their evidence,
PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 made categorical statements
regarding these aspects and those statements have remained
unchallenged.
10. In his evidence, PW-8 Dr. Anvar Samudri narrated in
detail the external injuries found on the dead body of the
deceased during the post mortem, conducted on 06.1.2019
between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. at Primary Health Centre,
Naregal. According to him the deceased was hacked to death by
a sharp object and he opined that the death was due to shock
and hemorrhage caused by deep cuts and lacerated wounds
suffered by the deceased. The deposition of PW-8 coupled with
the post mortem report marked at Ex.P7 and the inquest report
marked at Ex.P2, unerringly points out that the deceased met
with a homicidal death. The accused has not disputed this
portion of evidence on record.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
11. It is the definite case of the prosecution that the
accused was subjecting the deceased to cruelty, both physically
and mentally, suspecting her fidelity. On 6.1.2019 at 7.30 a.m.,
with the intention of killing her, the accused quarreled with the
deceased in their house and assaulted on the neck and left cheek
with an axe, thereby causing her death.
12. Undisputedly, during their evidence PW-2 and PW-4
made statements on oath supporting the prosecution's case.
However, the accused has contended that these persons were
not the eye-witnesses to the incident, and as such, their
testimony is neither believable nor reliable. In support of this
contention, learned Counsel for the Accused mainly relied on
the contents of Ex.P2 and certain admissions of PW-2 and PW-4.
13. Ex.P2 is the Inquest Report drawn at the scene of the
crime on 6.1.2019 between 11.45 am and 1.00 pm. In this
document, while noting the details pertaining to Question No.3, it
is mentioned that one Smt. Shakuntala W/o Sri Basavaraj Jogi
and Sri Basavaraj Jogi were the persons who first saw the dead
body of the deceased at the place, i.e., on 06.01.2019 at 7.35
a.m. This document does not contain any reference to PW-2
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
either as a person present at the time of the incident or as the
person who had seen the dead body of the deceased first.
However, in the considered view of this Court, this aspect cannot
be a ground to disbelieve the presence of PW-2 at the place
during the incident or to hold that she was not an eye-witness to
the incident.
14. First of all, PW-2 was about 9 years old at the time of
incident and about 11 years old when giving evidence. The
materials on record indicate that PW-2 gave evidence naturally,
with no exaggeration or improvement in her testimony. Further,
the accused neither disputed any of PW-2's statements including
her presence in the house at the relevant point of time, nor
attempted to discredit her testimony on any ground.
15. A careful analysis of the facts suggests that the
absence of reference to PW-2 in Ex.P2 is natural. PW-2, the
eldest child of the accused and the deceased, was studying in 3rd
Standard and was about 9 years old at the time. The crime was
committed at 7.30 a.m., and the Investigating Officer arrived at
around 11.30 a.m. The spot mahazar marked at Ex.P3 and the
spot sketch marked at Ex.P9 indicate that the crime scene was a
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
small house; as such, it is plausible that someone took PW-2 and
her siblings away from the scene in their interest. Therefore, this
Court finds no unusualness or reason to doubt the credibility of
PW-2 based on her non mention in Ex.P2.
16. It is true that during their cross examination, both
PW-2 and PW-4 admitted that they did not see the accused
assaulting the deceased. However, the material question is
whether such a stray admission is sufficient to hold that these
witnesses were not eye witnesses to the incident or had no
personal knowledge about the offender. In our considered view,
the answer is no. PW-2 is the daughter of the accused and she
was living with her family in the very same house, wherein her
mother was murdered. The spot mahazar marked at Ex.P3 and
the sketch produced at Ex.P9 show that the house in question
was a small, comprising only two portions, a hall measuring 20
feet by 7 feet and a small kitchen. In all probability, the family
members were using the hall for all purposes. PW-2 stated that
while she was asleep, she heard her mother's scream, and upon
waking saw the accused assaulting the deceased with an axe on
her neck, after which the deceased fell down. Analyzing this
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
statement carefully against the undisputed facts, it should be
held that PW-2 was in a position to observe the incident even
before getting up, as the crime was committed in same hall in
their house.
17. It is also relevant that according to PW-8 the
deceased suffered deep cuts and lacerated wounds on the left
side of the face and neck, swelling and deformity in the right
hand, and fractures in corresponding parts of her body. This
indicates that the deceased received multiple blows during the
incident, further strengthening the likelihood that PW-2
witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased.
18. Regarding PW-2's admission that she did not see the
accused assaulting the deceased with an axe, it is well settled
that such stray statements, especially those elicited during cross
examination, cannot be relied upon in isolation unless
corroborated by clear, categorical, and voluntary admissions
elsewhere on record. As noted, the accused has not disputed
any of PW-2's statements on oath, either during examination-in-
chief or cross-examination, nor provided any motive for PW-2 to
make such statements against him. Further more, PW-2's
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
examination-in-chief was recorded on 15.12.2020 and cross-
examination on 27.07.2021, making it possible that she might
have been persuaded to give the admission noted. On a holistic
evaluation, PW-2's testimony is trustworthy and confirms her
status as an eye-witness despite that stray statement.
19. The reliance on the statements of PW-4 differs
slightly from that of PW-2. Admittedly, PW-4 was a neighbour of
the accused and came to spot only after hearing the cry or
sound. As such, there would likely be some gap between the
time of the incident and when PW-4 reached the spot. It is
noteworthy that during his examination-in-chief, PW-4 stated
that "FUÀ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ, ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 07.30 PÉÌ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
¨Á¬Ä ¸À¥Àà¼À PÉý £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. DgÉÆæ GªÀiÁ¼À£ÀÄß
PÉÆrè¬ÄAzÀ PÀr¢zÀÝ£ÀÄ. DgÉÆæ PÉÆrèAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÀzÀ¯Éèà MUÉzÀÄ Nr ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ."
which means by the time PW-4 arrived, the accused had already
attacked the deceased with an axe. Even then, PW-4's
statements support the prosecution's case and appear reliable
because he specifically stated that the accused was still at the
place when he arrived, and that he saw the accused running
away after throwing the axe at the spot. As per Ex.P2, PW-4
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
was at the crime scene by 7.35 a.m., within 5 minutes of the
incident. The accused has not disputed either PW-4's statement
or the contents of Ex.P2, which corroborates his version.
Besides, the accused has not attributed any motive for PW-4 to
falsely implicate him. Therefore, on careful consideration of the
depositions of PW-2 and PW-4, we are convinced they were eye
witnesses to the incident, and their testimony is truthful and
reliable.
20. During the trial, the accused attempted to set up a
defense that the deceased had accidentally fallen on the sickle
and machetes present in the house, resulting in her injuries.
This is evident from answers elicited during the cross
examination of PW-1 and PW-12, which reads as follows: "£À£Àß
ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀÄqÀUÉÆÃ®Ä ªÀÄZÀÄÑUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ UÁAiÀĪÁVzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß
gÀPÀëuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃV DvÀ£À §mÉÖUÉ gÀPÀÛ ºÀwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®.(PW-1)"
and "ªÀÄÈvÀ¼ÀÄ dUÀ¼À DUÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è vÁ£Éà CZÁ£ÀPï DV ¹Ü«ÄvÀ
PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ MAzÀÄ DAiÀÄÄzsÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ, UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ¼É
JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®.è(PW-12)" respectively. Added to it, during the
course of argument, learned Counsel for the Accused contended
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
that the accused had approached the police to complain about
the murder of his wife but was instead implicated as an accused.
However, the accused has placed no material evidence on record
to support these contentions.
21. In their evidence, PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7
testified about the accused's conduct and ill-treatment to the
deceased, suspecting her fidelity, despite advice from elders.
Their statements corroborate the prosecution's case that the
accused committed the crime in furtherance of such behavior.
22. Learned Counsel for the Accused has drawn the
Court's attention to the relationship between PW-1, PW-2, PW-6
and PW-7 and the deceased, arguing that as close relatives they
are interested witnesses and their version cannot be believed.
However, the law on this point is well settled. A close relative of
a victim is not automatically categorized as an interested witness
nor is their testimony inherently biased. An interested witness is
one who has a personal stake in the outcome of the case, such
as an enmity, desire for revenge, or material gain, which could
influence their testimony. In the present case, the accused has
not pointed out any such personal stake or motive to suspect
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
these witnesses' testimony. PW-1, PW-6 and PW-7 have mainly
spoken about the accused's past conduct apart from narrating
facts they personally witnessed at the crime scene. PW-2, the
daughter of the accused, is a natural witness. Therefore, this
Court finds no substance in the argument to discredit their
testimony solely based on their relationship to the deceased.
23. On an overall appraisal of the material on record, the
Court is satisfied that the trial court correctly applied its mind
and rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offences. The
sentence awarded is commensurate with the offence committed.
Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does
not warrant any interference.
24. Before parting with the judgment, we find it
necessary to point out one lapse on the part of the investigating
agency in not obtaining the blood grouping report of the
deceased in the case. In his evidence, PW-12 - the Investigating
Officer, has stated about the recovery of blood stained articles
from the scene of crime as well as the seizure of the blood
stained clothes on the persons of the deceased and the accused.
Further, the prosecution has marked an FSL report pertaining to
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
its chemical analysis at Ex.P10, which states that the blood was
human blood of the 'O' blood group. However, the prosecution
has not produced any other material on record to show that
those blood stains were that of the deceased.
25. The above noted lapse on the part of investigating
agency has no bearing on out come of the present case because
of the reliable ocular testimony available on record. However,
the same cannot be said in every case. In Mustkeem Vs State
of Rajasthan reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that sole circumstance of
recovery of blood stained weapon cannot form a basis of
conviction unless the same was connected with the crime. The
similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Raja Naykar Vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in
(2024) 3 SCC 481. The very purpose of collecting blood stained
mud, clothes, and other incriminating articles during the course
of investigation is to link the circumstantial evidence and to
corroborate the guilt of the accused. If the investigating agency
fails to obtain the blood grouping report of the deceased or the
injured, as the case may be, the very object of collecting blood
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
stained material would be defeated. It is our experience that the
investigating agency often commits such mistakes. As such, we
deem fit to issue a direction to the Director General and
Inspector General of Police of Karnataka and the Director of
Department of Prosecutions to issue necessary instructions to all
concerned, to mandatorily collect the blood samples of the
injured or the deceased, as the case may be, and to submit such
blood grouping reports to the court as part of the prosecution
papers to avoid similar lapses in future.
26. One more aspect which requires attention is the non
compliance with Sections 357 and 357A of the Cr.P.C. In
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra reported
in (2013) 6 SCC 770, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
highlighted the legislative intent behind Section 357 of the
Cr.P.C., which is to ensure that victims are not neglected and to
necessitate courts to apply their mind to the question of
awarding compensation in every relevant criminal case. It is
further held that the occasion to consider awarding
compensation arises only after the court records a conviction of
the accused. The capacity of the accused to pay is an important
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
aspect of any order under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. and
involves a summary enquiry unless the facts emerging in the
trial make such enquiry unnecessary. Such enquiry can precede
the order on sentence to enable the court to take a view on both
the question of sentence and compensation to be awarded to the
victim or their family.
27. While Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates
ordering compensation from the accused, Section 357A of the
Cr.P.C. introduces a Victim Compensation Scheme for providing
compensation to victims or their dependents who have suffered
loss or injury due to the crime and require rehabilitation. In
State of Karnataka Vs. Mr. Vishwanatha Devadiga and
Others reported in ILR 2019 KAR 4643 the Co-ordinate bench
of this Court issued directions and guidelines to trial court judges
and Public Prosecutors regarding the implementation of the
Victim Compensation Scheme, as under:
"51. The trial Court judges are directed to keep in mind
the following guidelines while sentencing the
accused persons:
i) While sentencing, the Courts are directed to
consider the capability of the accused to pay
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
the fine and if the accused is capable to pay
the fine amount, order for appropriate fine
and compensation.
ii) If the accused is not capable to pay the
compensation, then direct or refer the
matter to the District Legal Services
Authority to pay the appropriate
compensation with the corpus created by
the State Government of Karnataka in terms
of the Notification dated 22.02.2012.
iii) The trial Court Judges shall not only order
for compensation but also make an interim
order to rehabilitate the victims as held by
the Apex Court in the cases of ANKUSH and
SURESH (cited supra).
iv) The trial Court Judges shall also while
awarding appropriate compensation and
passing an order for interim rehabilitation,
keep in mind the gravity of the offences,
nature of injuries and the amount spent for
treatment which should be just and
reasonable and not exorbitant. In other
words, the compensation should be
proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
v) The Public Prosecutors are directed to keep
in mind the following guidelines while
assisting the Court to award sentence to the
accused persons:
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
vi) The Public Prosecutors shall request the
respective Courts to impose the fine and
compensation with the letter and spirit of
Sections 357 and 357-A of Cr.P.C.
vii) The trial Courts have to determine whether
the accused is capable to pay the fine or the
compensation amount, if not the same has
to be referred to the District Legal Services
Authority.
viii) The learned Public Prosecutors shall also
make necessary application before the Court
to make interim arrangements to
rehabilitate the victim in order to fulfill the
very object of Sections 357 and 357-A of
Cr.P.C as held by the Apex Court in the
cases of Ankush and Suresh (cited supra)."
28. Additionally, in compliance with the direction therein,
the High Court of Karnataka issued Circular No.4/2019 dated
23.09.2019, instructing all the judicial officers in the State to
comply with the object and intent of Sections 357 and 357A of
the Cr.P.C.
29. This is a case where the accused killed his wife, aged
about 32 years, as a result of which their three children i.e, two
daughters and a son, were left orphans, all being minors at the
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
time of crime. This fact is evident from the deposition of PW-2,
who appeared before the trial court from a Children Home at
Gadag to give her evidence in the case. Even otherwise, PW-2
and her siblings have lost their mother and caretaker during their
minority. Thus, the plight of the three children left behind by the
deceased and their need for rehabilitation is clear.
30. The materials on record suggest that the trial court
imposed only a nominal fine on the accused, taking into account
his financial condition. The spot mahazar marked at Ex.P3
indicates that the accused was leaving his wife and three children
in a house comprising only one hall measuring 20 feet by 7 feet
and another small portion used as a kitchen, pooja room, and
bathroom. Nonetheless, it was the duty cast of the trial court to
disclose the application of its mind to this aspect by recording
reasons. This Court finds no justification for not invoking Section
357A of the Cr.P.C. in this case.
31. It is well settled that the power to award
compensation under Section 357 is not ancillary to other
sentences. Sentences such as imprisonment and/or fine are
imposed independently of any victim compensation, and these
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
two aspects stand on completely different footings. Section 357A
of the Cr.P.C. was introduced with effect from 31.12.2009, which
is continued under corresponding new provision i.e. Section 396
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The power
vested in the courts under Sections 357 and 357A of the Cr.P.C.
is for the benefit of the victims of crimes. Consequently, it
necessarily follows that there exists a mandatory duty on the
courts to apply their mind to these provisions before concluding
the proceedings. The awarding or refusal of compensation may
be within the discretion of the court, but reasons are to be
recorded by the court to disclose the application of mind. In the
above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, we opine
that apart from recommending compensation to the dependants
of the victim under Section 357A(2) of the Cr.P.C., it is essential
to issue a direction to all the judicial officers working in the State
to strictly comply with mandatory requirements of law.
32. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following :
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
(ii) As a result, the judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 30.12.2021 passed in
S.C. No.47/2019 by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Gadag is
confirmed.
(iii) Under Section 357A(2) of the Cr.P.C., a
recommendation is made to the District
Legal Services Authority, Gadag to award
suitable compensation to the children of
the deceased, in compliance with NALSA
Compensation Scheme for Women
Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/ Other
Crimes, 2018.
(iv) The registry is directed to forward a copy
of this judgment to the Director General
and Inspector General of Police of
Karnataka and to the Director of
Department of Prosecutions, to issue
necessary instructions to the concerned, in
compliance with the observations made in
Para 25 of the judgment.
(v) The registry is directed to forward a copy
of the judgment to all the Judicial Officers
working in the State for strict compliance
with Sections 357 and 357A of Cr.P.C. or
corresponding Sections 395 and 396 of
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16402-DB
HC-KAR
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
as the case may be, in all criminal cases.
(vi) The registry is directed to return the trial
court record to concerned court and send a
copy of judgment to the District Legal
Services Authority, Gadag for complying
with the recommendation made under
Section 357A(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(vii) The registry is directed to furnish free copy
of the judgment to the accused through
concerned jail authority.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
VB, CKK /CT-AN
