Karnataka High Court
Sri.Santosh S/O Yallappa vs Somashekhar @ Somashekharaya And Ors on 4 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
CRL.A No. 200064 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200064 OF 2016
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN
SRI SANTHOSH
S/O YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/AT: MANASHIVANAGI,
TALUK: JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND
KARNATAKA
1. SOMASHEKHAR @ SOMASHEKHARAYA,
S/O MALLAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: MANASHIVANAGI,
TALUK: JEWARGI.
2. SURESH,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/AT: SHAKHAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
CRL.A No. 200064 of 2016
HC-KAR
TALUK : JEWARGI.
3. RAMESH,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER,
R/AT SHAKHAPUR,
TALUK JEWARGI.
4. MALKAPPA,
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/AT: SHAKHAPUR,
TALUK: JEWARGI
5. MAHANTAPPA,
S/O CHANDAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/AT: SHAKHAPUR,
TALUK: JEWARGI
6. MAHADEVAPPA,
S/O CHANDAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/AT: SHAKHAPUR,
TALUK: JEWARGI
7. LAXMIBAI @ LAXMI @ MADIVALAMMA,
W/O CHANDRAKANT CHOUDAKKI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT: MANASHIVANAGI,
TALUK JEWARGI.
8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH YADRAMI P.S.
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL SPP,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
CRL.A No. 200064 of 2016
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLOANKAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R3 TO R7;
SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR R8;
V/O DATED 09.02.2023; R2 IS ABATED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.372 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SESSIONS CASE SPECIAL CASE
(SC/ST) NO.76/2014 FROM THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI. AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.01.2016
PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE (SC/ST) NO.76/2014 BY THE II
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI AND
CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT AND AWARD SENTENCE TO THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S. 143 & 306 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3(1) (X), (XI) & 3(2) (V) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 01.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
CRL.A No. 200064 of 2016
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This criminal appeal is filed challenging the judgment
and order of acquittal dated 30.01.2016 in Special Case
(SC/ST) No.76/2014 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge,
Gulbarga (herein after referred to as 'Trial Court') for the
offences punishable under Sections 143 and 306 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under
Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (SC/ST (PA) Act).
2. The factual matrix of the case of the
prosecution before the Trial Court is that the complainant-
father of deceased had lodged a computerized complaint,
which is marked as Exhibit P-18, stating that he has six
sons and three daughters. Out of them, seven are married
and he resides with his wife and two sons, Sunil and
Shivappa. It is also his case that his four sons are residing
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
separately with their families and his daughters are also
residing along with their respective husbands.
3. The son Chandrakanth (deceased) was eking
out his livelihood by running a grocery shop. On
15.04.2014 at about 4:00 p.m., he left on his motorcycle
to bring items for his shop, but he did not return. As he
used to stay at Sindagi or Gulbarga during the night and
return in the morning, the complainant kept quiet initially.
It is also his case that his other son, Santosh, made
repeated calls to the deceased, but the deceased did not
receive the calls. Subsequently, he made calls to all
relatives and enquired about the deceased, but he could
not be traced.
4. On 17.04.2014, when complainant's son
Shivappa was returning in a private vehicle to their village,
he noticed the motorcycle of the deceased near a water
channel in their land. He immediately informed the family
members. Thereafter, his sons Sunil, Santosh, Ramesh,
and his brother Ningappa went near the land and found
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
that the deceased was murdered and that his body was
lying beneath a Neem tree. It is also his case that he along
with his wife, brother and sons went to the spot and on
finding the body, noticed that there were injuries. It is
contended that about three months prior to the incident,
the accused persons had warned the deceased, stating
that they would finish him, if he did not treat his wife, i.e.,
their sister Lakshmibai, in good manner. It is also alleged
that his daughter-in-law, Lakshmibai, had developed an
illicit relationship with one Somashekharayya, for which
the deceased Chandrakanth had objected and hence, he
was murdered.
5. Based on the complaint, the PW-12 PSI,
Yadrami Police Station, registered the case in Crime
No.45/2014, at the first instance for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act and issued the FIR. He
forwarded the same to the jurisdictional police. Thereafter,
PW-10, Sri Santosh Babu, Additional SP, Rural Sub-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
Division, took up further investigation. He visited the spot,
drawn inquest mahazar in terms of Exhibit P-1, recorded
the statements of witnesses and the photographs taken at
the scene were marked as Exhibits P-12 to P-16. He also
prepared the spot panchnama in terms of Exhibit P-2 in
the presence of the witnesses and seized the articles which
were found at the spot. The dead body was then shifted
and post-mortem (PM) was conducted through the doctor
and the preliminary report was given in terms of Exhibit P-
3. He also recorded the statements of some of the
witnesses and the brothers, parents and uncle, who
consistently stated that the deceased was murdered.
6. During the course of investigation, the final PM
report was obtained, wherein it was found that the cause
of death was on account of consuming pesticide. Hence,
further statements of witnesses were recorded and a
charge-sheet was filed invoking the above offences,
alleging that the accused persons had abetted the
deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
7. Trial Court after considering the charge-sheet
material, secured the accused. Accused Nos.1 to 6 were
released on bail and subsequently accused No.7 was also
released on bail. The accused did not admit the charges
and claimed trial.
8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case,
examined PWs-1 to 14 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-
27 and M.Os.1 to 4. The trial Court recorded the
statements of the accused persons under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and the accused did not lead any defence
evidence. Having considered both oral and documentary
evidence, the trial Court answered all the points for
consideration in the negative and acquitted the accused.
Hence, this present appeal is filed before this Court.
9. The main contention of learned counsel
appearing for the appellant is that the judgment of
acquittal is contrary to law and the facts of the case. The
counsel in his arguments would vehemently contend that
Exhibit P-9 clearly shows that, while giving the final
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
opinion, it was mentioned that there is absence of the
Hyoid bone. When such a report is given, the trial Court
ought to have taken note of the said fact into
consideration and hence, it is a fit case to set aside the
order of acquittal. It is also contended that the
investigation was hopelessly conducted in a careless
manner and not properly investigated from the angle of
murder and disappearance of the Hyoid Bone from the
sealed bottle was deliberate and this aspect was not
considered. It is further contended that call details were
available from the call records of accused Nos.1 and 7, but
the same were not properly investigated or collected the
SIMs stood in the names of the accused persons. The
reasoning given by the trial Court is erroneous and
perverse, and the acquittal requires interference by this
Court.
10. Per contra, learned Additional SPP appearing for
the State, would submit that the trial Court extended the
benefit of doubt in favour of the accused only on the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
ground that call details are not proved. Apart from that,
the Court did not take note of the evidence of PW-10 and
PW-13. It is an error not to have considered the evidence
of PWs-1 to 7, since those witnesses have categorically
deposed before the Court that there was no cordiality
between the deceased and his wife-accused No.7 and it
requires interference.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant as well as the counsel appearing for the
respondent-State and also on considering the material
available on record, the points that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
i) Whether the trial Court committed an error in
acquitting the accused persons for the charges levelled
against them and Whether it requires interference of
this Court?
ii) What order?
12. This Court, having considered the material on
record, observed that the prosecution mainly relies upon
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
the evidence of PWs-1 to 14 and Exhibits P-1 to 27 and
MOs-1 to 4 i.e., both oral and documentary evidence.
13. It is not in dispute that the deceased and
accused No.7 are husband and wife and their marriage
took place 12 years ago. However, both of them were not
having any issues. The case of the prosecution is also that
accused Nos.1 and 7 were having an illicit relationship and
accused No.7 used to tease her husband. It is also the
case of the prosecution that accused Nos.2 to 6 did not
heed to the request of the deceased about illicit
relationship between accused Nos.1 and 7 and hence, the
deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide.
The trial Court has taken note of the invocation of offences
under the special enactment, in coming to the conclusion
that accused No.1 belongs to the Lingayat community and
the deceased belongs to SC/ST, taking note of Exhibit P-7
caste certificate and also the evidence on record. There is
no serious dispute with regard to the same, as far as caste
is concerned.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
14. Now, with regard to the charges levelled
against the accused persons, the prosecution examined
PWs-1 to 14. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased. PW-2 is
the uncle of the deceased. PWs-3, 4, 6 and 7 are the
brothers of the deceased. No doubt, all these witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution. The
prosecution also relied upon the independent witnesses,
PWs-8 and 9, who are the neighbours of the deceased.
The evidence of PW-11, who is working in the pesticide
shop from where the deceased is said to have purchased
the pesticide, is also relied upon. However, he did not
identify the deceased as the person, who purchased the
pesticide.
15. The prosecution further relied upon the
evidence of PWs-10, 12 and 13, i.e., police witnesses.
They have already pointed out that there is no dispute that
both the deceased and accused No.7 were married 12
years ago and had no issues. The specific allegation of the
prosecution is that the accused Nos.1 and 7 had developed
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
an illicit relationship. Though, the evidence of PWs-1 to 6
is consistent, but PWs-7 and 8 have not fully supported
the case of the prosecution. But, the Court has to take
note that at the first instance an allegation of murder was
alleged against the accused persons. Having considered
the document, i.e., Exhibit P1-complaint, except the
allegation of murder and illicit relation of accused Nos. 1
and 7, nothing further is attributed. It is also important to
note that during the course of the investigation, at the first
instance, all of them had made a statement that it is a
case of murder. When the final report was received in
terms of Exhibit P-8, it reveals that the death was due to
cardio-respiratory arrest caused by organophosphorus
poisoning. Hence, it is a case of committing suicide by
consuming poison and hence, invoked the offence under
Section 306 of IPC with other offences under Sections 143
and 149.
16. Now, having considered the evidence, which we
have already pointed out that it is a case of consuming
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
poison and this Court has to examine whether there is any
abetment to commit suicide. It is not in dispute that PW-1
is the mother, PWs-3, 4, 6 and 7 are the brothers of the
deceased and PW-2 is the uncle. But, during the course of
cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the deceased had
borrowed loan from the bank and also from private
lenders, but she has shown her ignorance about the bank
issuing a demand notice to the deceased, calling upon him
to make payment. Hence, it is clear that he had availed
loan not only from the bank but also from private persons.
17. Having considered this answer elicited from the
mouth of PW-1, this Court has also examined the evidence
of PWs-3, 4, 6 and 7 as well as PW-1 and no doubt, they
have deposed with regard to an abetment to commit
suicide. A perusal of Exhibit P-1 nothing is stated with
regard to abetment in taking the extreme step of
committing suicide.
18. It is also important to note that the post-
mortem report is very clear that no other external injuries
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
were found, though an allegation is made that the
deceased had sustained injuries. It is further important to
note that during the course of investigation, it emerged
that the deceased was also having an illicit relationship
with one Neelamma. The same is elicited from the mouth
of PW-10, the Investigating Officer, who categorically
admitted that during the investigation he came to know
that the deceased had illicit relationship with Neelamma
and said Neelamma was forcing him to marry her. He has
also given a categorical admission that he felt that the
accused were not responsible for the death of the
deceased.
19. It is also important to note that the evidence of
PW-10 clinches the issue that the deceased had illicit
relationship with Neelamma and that he categorically
admitted that the last call received by the deceased was
from Neelamma. The fact that Neelamma was in the
village is also admitted by the prosecution witnesses. The
very defence of the accused persons during the course of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is also that the
deceased had an illicit relationship with Neelamma.
20. The admission given by PW-1 regarding the
deceased having borrowed loan from the bank as well as
private persons was also discussed in Para 19 of the
judgment of the Trial Court. So also, with regard to the
independent witnesses concerned i.e., PW-8 and PW-9,
deposed they were not aware of illicit relationship between
accused No.1 and accused No.7 and both witnesses have
shown ignorance as to how the deceased met with death.
PW-8 stated that the relationship between the deceased
and accused No.7 was cordial, but they had no issues.
Hence, the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 also do not
supports the case of the prosecution.
21. It is also important to note that the prosecution
examined one more witness, PW-13/Venkata Reddy, Head
Constable of very same Police Station. He categorically
deposed that before the death of the deceased, his wife,
i.e., accused No. 7, had given a complaint making
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
allegations against her husband, i.e., the deceased, was
having an illicit relationship with one Neelamma and hence
he used to leave her in her parents' house. Based on that
complaint, the brothers and uncle of the deceased were
also secured, where an allegation was made that all of
them had planned to solemnize the marriage of the
deceased with a lady from Afzalpur. His evidence is clear
that he had secured the deceased, his brothers and uncle
to the police station and after conciliation, the deceased
agreed to take back accused No.7 and had executed an
undertaking that he would look after his wife in a good
manner and also see that his brothers would not trouble
her. Though, this witness was cross-examined, nothing is
elicited in favour of the prosecution. On this aspect, it was
also taken note of by the trial Court in paragraph No.21.
The trial Court also referred to the admission on the part
of PW-10 in paragraph No.20.
22. The trial Court further discussed with regard to
the phone call details contained in Exhibit P-24 and Exhibit
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
P-25. Exhibit P-24 is in connection with the phone calls
between the deceased and Neelamma and Exhibit P-25 is
in respect of the phone calls said to be of accused No.7
and accused No.1. But, in order to prove that the phone
call belongs to both of them, nothing is proved. The call
details were collected by the Investigating Officer of the
mobiles of the accused, but he has not filed the same
before the Court along with the charge-sheet, since he did
not obtain information regarding in whose name the SIM
card allegedly used by accused No.7 stood, since the same
was not standing in the name of accused No.7. PW-5 only
stated about the phone number of accused No. 7, but
there is nothing to show that it stands in the name of
accused No. 7 or any other accused. Hence, the trial Court
did not consider the same. A detailed discussion was made
in paragraph No.22 of the judgment and an observation is
made that there was a lapse and inaction on the part of
the Investigating Officer in collecting the material. Exhibit
P-25 shows that the last call from mobile number of
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
accused No.1 was to accused No.7 and the same was on
24th November 2013, whereas the incident took place in
April 2014.
23. Having taken note of the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of PWs-1
to 6 and also the admissions on the part of PWs-1, 10 and
13, there is no corroborative piece of evidence with regard
to the allegation that accused No.7 teased the deceased
for not procuring a child and quarreling him. On the
contrary, the evidence of PWs.10 and 13 goes against the
deceased and in order to prove the ingredients of
abatement to commit suicide, nothing is on record. At the
first instance, the allegation was that the accused persons
committed murder and subsequently, in the month of July,
further statements of witnesses were recorded with regard
to abatement and illicit relationship and if, they had really
heard accused No.7 teasing deceased and quarreling with
him, for not begetting a child and that she abetted to die,
they could have stated the same at the earliest point of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
time, but such allegations were not stated at that time.
Trial Court also noted that when the deceased himself had
executed an undertaking and brought back his wife to his
house and those materials clearly reveal that the deceased
himself had given such an undertaking.
24. It is further important to note that, while
invoking an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be
proximity to cause for the death and also to abetment. As
far as abetment is concerned, the evidence on record do
not inspire confidence of the Court, since at the first
instance there was no such allegation and only after the
final report was received stating that it was a suicide and
not a murder, further statements were recorded and those
further statements of witnesses also do not corroborate
with their allegation of abatement. The trial Court has
rightly taken note of all these material into consideration.
In the absence of any material with regard to abetment,
invoking Section 306 of IPC does not arise.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
25. As far as the other offences under Sections 143
and 149 IPC are concerned, while invoking Sections 143
and 149, there must be a common object. In the present
case, no common object is also missing. There is also no
specific charges against the other accused persons that
they abetted the deceased in taking the extreme step of
committing suicide. Only omnibus allegations have been
made against the other accused that they did not head to
the request of the deceased, when the allegation of
accused Nos.1 and 7 having illicit relationship was made.
The trial Court also rightly made an observation that, to
invoke Section 306 of IPC, there must be proximity to
cause of death.
26. No doubt, the counsel appearing for the
appellant in his argument brought to the notice of this
Court, the document at Ex.P-9, wherein a report is given
that the Hyoid Bone is not found. The same will not help
the prosecution to tilt the reasoning in order to invoke the
penal provision under Section 306 of IPC. No doubt,
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the
order of acquittal is erroneous and trial Court ought to
have taken note of the document at Ex.P-9 and the Court
has to draw an inference regarding the absence of Hyoid
Bone, which cannot be accepted.
27. The other contention that investigation of the
case is not done in a proper manner. No doubt, there is
force in the contention of the learned counsel that though
information of call details of accused Nos.1 and 7 is
collected, in order to prove the illicit relationship. The fact
remains that though, PW.5 states that the phone number
belongs to accused No.7 only, but to prove that the same,
nothing is collected and non-collection of details of the
particular phone number, as to in whose name it stands,
cannot take away the case of the prosecution. There must
be other evidence before the Court and the ingredients of
Section 306 IPC are not proved.
28. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs-10 and
13 goes against the prosecution. During the course of
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
investigation, it has emerged that the deceased was
having illicit relationship with one Neelamma and the same
is admitted by the I.O. It is also categorically deposed by
PW-13 that before deceased committing suicide, the wife,
i.e., accused No.7, had lodged a complaint and the
accused and brothers of the deceased had also been
secured to the police station. The accused had executed
an undertaking that he would take care of accused No.7.
When such material is also found, the question of
interference by this Court does not arise. It is not a case of
extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.
There is no corroborative evidence to prove the charges
levelled against the accused. In case of conviction, there
must be a corroborative piece of evidence and the
prosecution also must prove the same beyond reasonable
doubt. The evidence available on record does not
corroborate the case of the prosecution. Hence, the
question of reversing the judgment of Trial Court does not
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5172-DB
HC-KAR
arise. Accordingly, the answer to the points for
consideration is in the negative.
29. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:NI
