[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Maruti S/O. Paramanand Madamageri vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100053 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MARUTI S/O. PARAMANAND MADAMAGERI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR,
R/O. SHILTIBHAVI,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
THROUGH GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION,
VINAYAKA DIST. BELAGAVI-580011.
BV ...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
by VINAYAKA B V
Date: 2026.04.09
14:38:33 +0530 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE S.C. NO.8025/2021 ON THE FILE
OF HON'BLE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK AND TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
24.08.2023 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 31.08.2023 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK IN S.C. NO.8025/2021, CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
302 AND 201 OF IPC, FURTHER ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 OF IPC IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 06.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and
learned Addl. SPP for the respondent/State.
2. This appeal is filed by the accused praying this
Court to set-aside the judgment of conviction dated
24.08.2023 and order on sentence dated 31.08.2023 for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC
passed in SC No.8025/2021 on the file of the learned XII
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak
(for short, 'Trial Court').
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that the accused is a real son born to the former husband of
Smt.Kannavva, who later eloped and married to the brother
of the complainant namely Yallappa Irappa Sanadi about 9
years back. Hence, the accused developed ill-will and
hatredness against the family members of the complainant.
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
In pursuance of the said hatredness, on 02.03.2021 at about
5.20 p.m., in the land bearing Sy.No.33 belonging to the
complainant situated at Shiltibhavi village within the limits of
Gokak Rural Police Station, the mother of the complainant
namely Basavva, wife of Ramachandra Sanadi, while cleaning
in the land, found the accused moving by holding koyta in his
hand. The mother of the complainant called and advised the
accused to keep in good terms with his mother and his second
father, which made the accused to get angry on her and with
an intention to cause murder, assaulted on her neck with the
very same koyta about 2 to 3 times, which resulted in taking
the life of the mother of the complainant. In order to screen
the evidence, the accused dragged the body of the deceased
to the adjacent land of one Cholappa Shivappa Akki. Based on
the complaint of PW1, the jurisdictional police have registered
the case in Crime No.36 of 2021 and conducted the
investigation and after recording the evidence and collecting
the incriminating materials, have filed the charge sheet for
the above offences. In view of filing of the charge sheet, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same is
numbered as SC No.8025 of 2021. The accused was arrested
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
on 08.03.2021 and he was enlarged on bail. Later he was
absent and hence he was secured with NBW and bail bonds
were forfeited and the accused did not plead guilty and claims
trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the case against
the accused relied upon the evidence PW1 to PW16 and
marked Exs.P1 to P36 and also got marked the MOs.1 to 12.
On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was
subjected to 313 statement and the accused did not choose to
lead any defence evidence. The trial Judge, having
appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, convicted
and sentenced the accused for both offences. Being aggrieved
by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed
before this Court.
5. The counsel appearing for the appellant in his
argument would vehemently contend that though the
prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW4, who is an
eyewitness to the incident, but he is not an eyewitness and
the trial Judge also failed to consider the evidence of PW5 and
PW6 and their evidence is contradictory to each other and the
same supports the defence of the appellant/accused. But the
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
trial Judge, by overlooking this aspect of the matter,
committed an error in convicting the accused. He further
submits that there is no clear and clinching evidence to point
out the role of the accused in committing the murder. The
counsel would vehemently contend that the witnesses, who
have been examined before the Court, are all relative
witnesses and were having cordiality with PW1-complainant,
and the evidence of PW1 to PW16 is contradictory to each
other and in spite of it, the trial Judge committed an error in
convicting the accused/appellant, which has resulted in
miscarriage of justice.
6. The counsel for the appellant would further submit
that even though PW4 supported the case of the prosecution,
his mother, who has been examined as PW16, has turned
hostile. It is also contented that there is no dispute regarding
the second marriage and during the course of cross-
examination, it is elicited that there was no any hatredness on
account of second marriage. The counsel also would submit
that even the evidence of recovery witnesses i.e., PW3 and
PW10, does not inspire the confidence of the Court and even
though the clothes of the accused were seized at the instance
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
of the independent witnesses, but their evidence also not
inspires the confidence that there was a recovery at the
instance of the accused. The counsel would submit that sickle
as well as chopper were seized, but no blood stains were
found on the pant, but according to the prosecution, blood
stain was found only on the shirt. The counsel also submits
that the accused was arrested on 03.03.2021 in the very
same village, that too in the bus stand. The counsel would
submit that even voluntary statement, which is marked as
Ex.P27, also not proved with regard to the recovery. The
counsel also would submit that the evidence is clear that
there was no any ill-will and hence, question of taking the life
of the deceased does not arise. The counsel would submit that
when there is no any eye witness evidence and the case then
rests upon the circumstantial evidence. There is no any
motive for committing the murder also and other chain of
circumstances are also not proved and therefore, the trial
Court ought to have acquitted the accused, but committed an
error in believing the case of the prosecution and hence it
requires interference.
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
7. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the
respondent/State would submit that the evidence of PW4 is
very clear that he is an eyewitness to the incident and apart
from that, the evidence of PW5 and PW6 is very clear that
both of them have last seen the accused having koyta in his
hand moving near the land of the victim. The motive for
committing the murder is that the accused was having an ill-
will, since the mother eloped with a person and staying along
with him. The learned Addl. SPP would submit that the
recovery witnesses PW3 and PW10 though turned hostile but
their evidence is very clear with regard to the seizure of the
weapon as well as cloth and even though these witnesses
have turned hostile with regard to the recovery of clothes, but
in the cross-examination admitted the same.
8. The learned Addl. SPP would further submit that
FSL report is also very clear that blood stains were of 'B'
group blood and there was no any provocation and also no
such provocative word was used by the deceased. It is further
submitted that the doctor, who conducted the postmortem,
has given the evidence that the weapon of Koyta could cause
the injuries and Ex.P21 is the PM report and given the report
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
that it is a case of homicidal. He further submits that the
evidence of PW15, who speaks about the FSL report, also
corroborates the case of the prosecution and the same has
been properly appreciated by the trial Court and convicted
and sentenced the accused, hence, it does not require any
interference.
9. In reply to this argument, counsel appearing for
the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not
satisfied the trial Court with regard to the material available
on record and in spite of it, the trial Court committed an error
and the very case of prosecution is not proved and hence, it
requires an interference of this Court.
10. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent/State
and also on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence,
the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court
are:
1) Whether the trial Judge has committed an
error in convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Sections 302 and
201 of IPC and whether it requires
interference of this Court?
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
2) What order?
11. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal
memo and also the oral submissions of the respective
counsel, this Court has to re-appreciate the material available
on record. The law was set in motion in terms of Ex.P1-
complaint given by PW1 and in a complaint, PW1 says that he
went and enquired Yallappa Irappa Sanadi about his mother
and he says that his mother was cleaning the land at about
03.00 p.m. and at around 05.00 p.m. found the accused, who
was moving along with koyta in his hand near his land and
having enquired the said Yallappa, both of them searched the
mother and found the food particles, the vessels and also the
blood stains. Hence, being afraid of the same, by using the
torch, searched and on searching, they found the dead body
in the land of Cholappa Shivappa Akki and it was around
10.30 p.m. and hence, the complaint was lodged and this
accused might have been for some reason committed the
murder and in order to screen the evidence, took the dead
body and thrown the same in the land of Cholappa Shivappa
Akki and suspected the role of the accused. Having perused
- 10 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
these contents, it is very clear that the complainant had
suspected the role of the accused and this complaint was
given on 03.03.2021 in the early morning at 04.00 a.m. and
the case was registered.
12. In order to prove the contents of the complaint
and charge sheet allegation, the prosecution mainly relies
upon the evidence of PW1-complainant, who is not an eye
witness, but in his evidence, he reiterates the contents of the
complaint and he identifies signature in Ex.P1 and so also
spot panchanama at Ex.P2 and photo was taken in terms of
Ex.P3 and except the said place, he has not shown any other
place and also witness says that photo was taken in terms of
Ex.P4 in the land of Cholappa Shivappa Akki and it was at
around 06.00 a.m. This witness was also treated as hostile by
the learned Public Prosecutor, wherein he got elicited with
regard to the accused having ill-will against the deceased,
since she eloped and married the said Yallappa and also
having ill-will against Yallappa and his family members and
the accused was not in good terms with the family members.
It is also suggested to PW1 that on the advice of the
deceased, he became angry and hence he inflicted the injury
- 11 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
and taken the life, and also speaks about the seizure of MO1
to 6 and identifies the same and so also, photo was taken in
terms of Ex.P4 and conducted the inquest and seized the cloth
of the deceased and identifies Ex.P5 and P6- photographs, so
also MO7 to MO9. This witness was subjected to cross
examination. In the cross examination, he admits that he had
studied upto SSLC and also he used to sign in English. But he
was under grief and hence he did not write the complaint. He
further says that he met Yallappa around 07.30 p.m. and also
there was a maize crop in the place of incident and also in the
surrounding land. However, he categorically admits that there
was no any quarrel between him and the accused till date and
on that day, except meeting Yallappa, he did not meet
anyone. But his categorical admission was given that the
complaint was given on suspicion. But in the cross-
examination, he admits that he searched his mother from
07.00 to 10.00 p.m. alone. But in the complaint-Ex.P1, he
says that he himself and Yallappa searched and the same is
contrary to the contents of Ex.P1. It is also important to note
that he categorically admitted that there was no any quarrel
or ill-will till the date of the incident between the accused and
- 12 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
their family members and also he categorically says that he
did not meet anybody else except this Yallappa. It is also clear
that the complaint was given only on suspicion, suspecting
the role of the accused. It is also important to note that PW1
categorically admits that there was a good cordial relationship
between the accused and their family members and he says
that he gave the complaint in the early morning at 4 a.m. and
says that on his instruction, the complaint was written by
Yallappa. However, he categorically admits that Yallappa
Sanadi, Hanamantha Toklara and Parasuram Toklara are his
relatives. It is also important to note that he says that police
have not recorded his statement and categorically admits that
all charge sheet witnesses are very cordial to him i.e. CW2,
CW3, CW4, CW5, CW6 and CW7. It is also his evidence that
CW6 and CW7 are his relatives and they are cordial with him.
It is important to note that in the further cross-examination
also, PW1 categorically admits that police have not given any
notice to him and he cannot tell the description of the spot,
where the dead body was found and the police took the
photographs that they are in need of the photographs.
- 13 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
13. Now this Court has to take note of the evidence of
PW4, for the reason that the prosecution mainly relies upon
this witness as an eyewitness. But this witness says that at
around 05.30 p.m. on the date of the incident, the deceased
advised the accused that he must be cordial with his mother
and also with the second father and hence, the accused
inflicted the injury on her neck and Basavva started
screaming at the spot and being afraid of this incident, he left
the spot by himself and his mother, but did not inform the
same to anybody else. This witness was subjected to cross-
examination. PW4 admits in the cross-examination that he
belongs to the very same community as that of the
complainant and having good relationship with him and at the
time of the incident, he was in his land and he was there
throughout from morning till evening. However, PW4 admits
that if any person stands in the maize crop land, nobody can
see the said person. It is suggested that he did not witness
anything and falsely deposing before the Court and the same
was denied. He admits that near the place of incident, there
is a tar road and number of cart and people used to move in
the said place and also there is a kacha road near the place,
- 14 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
where the body was found and there was difficulty to inform
the said person, but only informed the same in the next day
morning. It is suggested that he did not witness anything and
he is positively deposing before the Court.
14. Having considered the evidence of PW4, though he
claims that he witnessed the incident of inflicting the injury on
the neck of the deceased, but the very complaint Ex.P1 is
contrary to the same and in the complaint stated that on
enquiry of this witness, PW1 came to know that the accused
was moving with Koyta near the land. But nothing is stated on
enquiry by PW4 that he had witnessed the accused inflicting
the injury on the deceased and when such evidence is
available before the Court, the very presence of PW4 and also
that too, he is an eye witness cannot be accepted. If really he
had witnessed the same, he would have informed the same to
PW1-complainant and he also categorically says that he had
lodged the complaint only on suspicion not based on any
positive information and hence, the evidence of PW4 cannot
be relied upon and so also, PW4 did not inform anything to
anybody having witnessed the incident or the accused moving
with Koyta near the land of the accused. It is also important
- 15 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
to note that in the complaint, PW1 says that both of them
have searched. But in the cross-examination, PW1 says that
he searched alone not along with PW4 and there are material
contradictions with regard to having found the dead body and
also regarding receiving of the information and the evidence
of these two witnesses cannot be relied upon.
15. Now the case rests upon the circumstantial
evidence. PW3 in his evidence, says that the police called him
and seized MO Nos.7 to 9 and also drawn the mahazar in
terms of Ex.P8 and so also, he says that the accused made
the statement that he is going to take them to the place,
where he had committed the murder and thrown the dead
body and also where he kept the weapon and led the police
along with him in a police vehicle and he pointed out the
place. He further says that the police have also drawn the
mahazar about the place of committing the murder and
throwing the dead body and the accused led further and
produced koyta and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P9. So
also it is his evidence that Koyta is identified as MO10 and
photos were taken in total 6 i.e. Exs.P10 to P15 and
thereafter, they came back to the police station and in the
- 16 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
police station, they did not seize any cloth. However, PW4
admits the signature in Ex.P16. This witness was also treated
as hostile in part. But in the cross examination, the
suggestion was made that the cloths of the accused were also
seized and he admits the same. But in the cross-examination,
he admits that his caste and the complainant's was one and
the same and also he is a relative of the complainant. He
further admits that no notice was given by the police,
however, they took 2 to 3 signatures. But he categorically
admits that PW1 only brought him to the police station at
around 10 a.m. and he cannot tell the description of the spot,
where the murder took place and at around 12.30 to 01.00
p.m., he visited the place of incident and police were also
there and he came to know about the place of incident and
also the place where the body was found through PW1 and
went to recover the weapons at around 02.30 to 03.00 p.m.
and he cannot give the description and he says that one
Satteppa accompanied him and at around 04.00 to 05.00
p.m., he came back to the police station and the accused was
also there and mahazar was drawn in between 06.00 to 07.00
p.m. In the cross examination, the suggestion was made that
- 17 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
he is falsely deposing before the Court and the same was
denied. It is clear that PW1 did not speak anything about
seizure of the cloth of the accused, but only in the cross
examination, he admits the same. Thus, it is very clear that
he was not called to the police station by giving any notice,
but he categorically says that he came along with PW1 and
though he speaks about the place of incident and the place,
where the body was found, but the same was known to each
and every person prior to visiting of the spot. With regard to
the recovery of the cloth is concerned, the evidence of PW3
will not come to the aid of the prosecution, since he
accompanied PW1 to the police station. But in the chief
evidence, he says that no clothes were seized in the police
station and hence, the evidence of PW3 does not inspire the
confidence of the Court regarding recovery of the clothes.
16. Now this Court has to take note of the evidence of
PW10, who is also a witness to the recovery. PW10 reiterates
the evidence of PW3 with regard to the accused led the place,
where murder was committed and where the body was
thrown and also producing of the weapon and he is a
signatory to Ex.P9-Mahazar and when he came back to police
- 18 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
station, his signature was taken to Ex.P16. PW10 also says
that in his presence, nothing was seized, however, he
identified the signature in Ex.P8 and this witness also turned
hostile to the case of the prosecution. During the cross-
examination, PW10 also says that the accused produced his
T-shirt, pant and the same was seized, but the timings, what
he has given is 02.30 to 03.00 p.m. But according to PW3, it
was 06.00 to 07.00 p.m. and they came back to the police
station at around 05.00 to 06.00 p.m. But in the cross-
examination, this witness says that he was not called over the
phone, but he was called through some other person. PW10
claims that at around 10 to 11 a.m., he went to the spot
alone and at that time, no one was accompanied with him.
But he denies the seizure of the weapon. The evidence of
PW10 also not inspires the confidence of the Court. According
to PW3 and PW10, both of them were not summoned to the
police station by giving any notice. But PW10 claims that he
was not called by the police but someone was called him and
timings also not tallies with each of the evidence. Hence, this
Court cannot believe the evidence of PW3 and PW10 with
regard to the recovery is concerned and both evidence are
- 19 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
inconsistent, particularly with regard to the seizure of the
clothes of the accused.
17. Now this Court has to take note of the evidence of
PW15, who is FSL witness. PW15, no doubt, gives the
evidence that blood stains detected in Item Nos.1, 3 to 8, 10
and 11 were stained with human blood, which was 'B' group
blood. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and in
the cross-examination, he admits that he has not mentioned
the colour of bangles in his report. He also admits that both
sickle and koyta are different weapons and relies upon the
Report at Ex.P34 and no doubt, Ex.P34 is clear with regard to
the blood stains found in the articles including the cloth of the
accused and when the seizure of the cloth of the accused was
doubtful and the evidence of PW3 and PW10 is not consistent
and both of them have turned hostile partly with regard to the
seizure of the cloth, but only learned Public Prosecutor got
elicited the answer, treating the witness as hostile with regard
to the seizure. The evidence of PW15 also will not come to the
aid of the prosecution considering the report at Ex.P34.
18. Now with regard to the motive is concerned, the
prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW1, PW4,
- 20 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
PW5 and PW6. This Court has already discussed the evidence
of PW1, PW3 and PW4, as to whether it comes to the aid of
the prosecution. PW5, according to him, he himself and his
wife were in the land and his wife was cleaning the land. He
further says that at around 5.00 p.m., he found the accused
along with Koyta and stared all of them and his wife also left
the land. But he says that at around 05.30 to 06.00 p.m.,
PW1 came and enquired him. But PW1 says that he met PW5
at around 07.30 p.m. not in between 05.30 to 06.00 p.m. and
only he informed that his mother was cleaning the land. But
this witness says that both of them searched and found two
kurpis, chappal, food vessels and blood stains and went
towards Cholappa's land and body was found at around 10.30
p.m. and no doubt, with regard to the timing is concerned at
10.30 p.m., the evidence of PW1 and PW5 is consistent and
also he identifies Ex.P1 and his signature that he only wrote
the complaint. But speaks about the accused was having
grudge against the deceased. This witness was subjected to
cross-examination and in his cross-examination, when the
question was put as to what time, he went to the police
station to give the complaint, he claims that it was 06.00 p.m.
- 21 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
and he himself, his wife Kannava, PW1 and Kenchappa, all of
them went to the police station and complaint was written at
07.00 p.m. But the case of the prosecution is that the
complaint was given at 04.00 a.m. in the early morning and
the evidence of PW5 is contrary to the very case of the
prosecution with regard to the timings and lodging of the
complaint. It is also important to note that when the
suggestion was made that he wrote the complaint as per the
police, but he claims that he wrote the complaint in terms of
his brother and he had seen the deceased Basavva about
03.00 p.m. and the timings of having found the accused is
also at 02.00 p.m., but not 05.00 p.m. as deposed by PW1.
The evidence of PW5 is also inconsistent having considered
the evidence of PW1. Further, he categorically admits that
there was no any ill-will between himself and the accused till
date and this evidence corroborates each other with PW1 that
there was no any ill-will and hence, the question of motive for
committing the murder not supported by any evidence.
19. Now this Court has to consider the evidence of
PW6, who is none other than the mother of the accused and
she speaks about she eloped and married with the present
- 22 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
husband and the accused was having grudge against her,
since she was staying along with the present husband. This
witness also says that the deceased was cleaning the land and
the accused was found with koyta at around 05.00 to 05.30
p.m. and was staring at them. PW6 further says that she
came to know about the dead body was found after search
and the accused enraged by the words of deceased, assaulted
the deceased with koyta. But in the cross-examination, she
admits that she left her earlier husband 9 to 10 years ago and
there was no any galata between herself and her earlier
husband. However, she claims that the accused was having
hatredness and this witness also categorically admits that till
date, the accused did not quarrel with them. Hence, it is very
clear that there was no any ill-will having considered the
evidence of PW1, PW5 and PW6. PW6 also says that the
accused was threatening her, but no such complaint was
given. This witness also says that when cleaning the land,
nobody can see inside the maize crop and this evidence also
will not come to the aid of the prosecution and the evidence of
this witness is not consistent.
- 23 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
20. The Court can rely upon only if the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses is reliable and then Court can come to
a conclusion that the accused only committed the murder. But
in the case on hand, having perused the evidence of PW4,
though claims to be an eye witness to the incident, the same
does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
21. The other witness is PW7, who is not an eye
witness, PW8 is an Engineer and PW9 is an interested witness.
No doubt, having considered the evidence of PW11-Doctor, it
is a case of homicidal and PM report is also marked as Ex.P21
and the injuries were also found and only because the death
is on account of homicidal, the Court cannot come to a
conclusion that the accused only committed the murder and
this Court in detail considered the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses. No doubt, PW12 is the Police Inspector, who
conducted the investigation and the recoveries are also made
at the instance of the accused. But in the cross-examination,
he admits with regard to the location of the place, where the
incident was taken place and there is a kacha road and people
also used to move in that place. He further says that he did
not record any further statement of any of the witnesses and
- 24 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
did not mention the jeep number, in which they went and also
he did not collect any RTC and the same is not defective.
22. PW13 is the photographer, who took the
photographs and PW14 is the ASI. PW14, in his evidence,
categorically deposes that the complaint was received in the
early morning at 04.00 a.m. But the evidence of PW5 is very
clear that the complaint was written in the previous day itself
and the complaint was written before 07.30 p.m. There are
material contradictions with regard to the evidence of
prosecution. Having considered all these prosecution
evidence, we are of the considered view that the trial Court
has committed an error in convicting the accused. We have
already pointed out that there was no any direct evidence and
though claims that PW4 is direct evidence, but his evidence is
not consistent nor credible. The law is well settled with regard
to consideration of the material in a case of circumstantial
evidence in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Sharad Birdichandra Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 1984 Cr.L.J., 1738, and also
recent judgment of the Apex Court in Subramanya v. State
of Karnataka reported in (2023) 11 SCC 255, wherein also
- 25 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
it is reiterated the Panchasheela while considering the case of
circumstantial evidence, that means, all circumstances should
point out the role of the accused in coming to a conclusion
that the accused person only committed the crime and if any
chain link is not established, the benefit of doubt has to be
extended in favour of the accused.
23. In the case on hand, the motive is not proved and
also case is registered only on suspicion and the same is
admitted by PW1 and recovery evidence of PW3 and PW10
also not inspires the confidence of the Court and particularly
with regard to the seizure of the cloth is concerned, there is
no any cogent evidence. Hence, FSL report at Ex.P34 also
would not come to the aid of the prosecution and even with
regard to the last seen theory, as contented by the learned
Addl. SPP for the respondent/State, the evidence of PW5 and
PW6 is also not consistent and there are material
contradictions in respect of each of the circumstances. When
such being the case, we are of the opinion that the trial Court
committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused
and hence it requires interference of this Court. The trial
Court has committed an error in relying upon the evidence of
- 26 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
PW4 and also the other circumstantial evidence. Hence, it is a
fit case to reverse the judgment of conviction having
reassessed the material i.e. both oral and documentary
evidence and hence, we answered point No.1 in the
"affirmative".
24. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following order:
ORDER
i) The present appeal filed by the accused is
allowed.
ii) Consequently, the judgment of conviction
dated 24.08.2023 and order on sentence
dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned
XII Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi, sitting at Gokak in SC
No.8025/2021 against the accused-Maruti
S/o Paramanand Madamageri, for the
offences punishable under Sections 302
and 201 of IPC is set aside.
- 27 -
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2024
iii) The accused, who is in custody, is set at
liberty forthwith in view of his acquittal.
iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the
accused shall be refunded to the appellant-
accused on proper identification.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:PA
