[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ravi S/O. Kanakappa Patrot vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH 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.100233 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
RAVI S/O. KANAKAPPA PATROT,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,
R/O. SIDDAPUR, NOW TOLAMATTI ROAD,
SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL FARMHOUSE,
TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE, PIN-587116.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BILAGI POLICE STATION,
BILAGI TALUK, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,
R/BY. THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
- RESPONDENT
Digitally (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P.)
signed by
VINAYAKA
VINAYAKA B V THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
BV Date:
2026.04.09 CR.P.C. (SECTION 415(2) OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
14:39:41
+0530 THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.10.2024 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN
SESSIONS CASE NO. 12/2023 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 07.04.2026, 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
-2-
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C. No. 12/2023 for
the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC questioning the
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- and prayed
this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.
2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that the
accused and deceased Chandrappa were known to each other,
the husband of PW3, i.e. deceased was addicted to consumption
of alcohol, he used to consume alcohol everyday. The deceased
did not turn up to house on 08.12.2022 but he left the house
stating that he is going near Bilagi cross and when he did not
turn up, PW3 and children went to sleep. But on 09.12.2022 at
about 08.00 a.m. PW11 made a phone call that a body is lying in
Modi plot at Bilgi cross and asked her to come to the said place,
she went to the place and identified that the said body is of her
husband, she lodged the complaint stating that her husband was
murdered by someone else. Hence case is registered and
investigation is conducted. The accused was arrested and after
the completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed;
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
after filing of the charge sheet case was registered as C.C. No.
7/2023; thereafter the matter was committed to the Sessions
Court and the same is numbered as S.C. No. 12/2023; the
accused was secured, he did not plead guilty and claims the trial,
hence prosecution relies upon the evidence PWs 1 to 13, got
marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.40 so also MOs 01 to 11.
3. The charges levelled against the accused is that on
08.02.2022 at 11.30 p.m. in the open space of property bearing
No. 319/1 belonging to one Sivaganga situated at Badagandi
Village, when deceased Chandrappa insisted the accused to offer
him liquor, the accused getting enraged by it, assaulted him with
a big sized stone on his head and committed the murder. The
trial judge having considered the evidence of PWs1 to 13 and
documentary evidence, since the accused also denied
incriminating evidence under Section 313 of CrPC, appreciated
both the case of prosecution and also the defence and comes to
the conclusion that accused only committed the murder of the
deceased and convicted him and sentenced for the offence
referred above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
4. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellant-accused is that the case is rested upon circumstantial
evidence. He further contended that the trial judge committed an
error in not considering the material contradictions and
discrepancies in the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and the punishment imposed on the appellant is on higher side.
The trial judge committed an error in relying upon the
circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution and finding
is erroneous which led to the miscarriage of justice. The counsel
in his arguments submits that when the case is rested upon
circumstantial evidence, only evidence relied upon by the
prosecution is last seen theory and blood stains on the cloth of
the accused were recovered at the instance of the accused. The
counsel would submit that trial Court relied upon the evidence of
PW8 and PW9 and the evidence of PW3, wife of the deceased is
nothing but an improvement in her evidence.
5. The counsel also would submit that the trial Court
committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW4 so also
the evidence of PW5, the evidence of the Doctor PW7 and relied
upon the wound certificate of the accused which is marked as
Ex.P.22. The counsel would submit that the blood group is 'AB'
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
group, but no evidence is placed before the Court whether it
belongs to the deceased or the accused; further there is no any
motive to commit the murder and only motive attributed by the
prosecution is that the deceased insisted to offer liquor and the
same cannot be a motive. The counsel would further submit that
PW11 first found the dead body and prosecution mainly relied
upon the document Exhibit P40 FSL report so also the voluntary
statement of accused at Exhibit P28. But the same cannot be
relied upon. The counsel also submits that the trial Judge has
committed an error in relying upon the evidence of PW3, PW4,
PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW13 and the material available on record
is not sufficient. The counsel also admits that there was a long
gap of last seen witness as well as body was found on the next
day. When the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the same
and the same is not proved, it is not a case for invoking Section
302 IPC and the trial court ought to have taken note that there
was no any intention to commit the murder and there was no
any previous ill will and without prejudice, the counsel would
submit that the trial Court ought to have invoked Section 304 of
IPC.
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State Additional
State Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of last
seen witnesses, PW8 and PW9 is very clear and both of them had
seen the accused and deceased in the late night at around 11.00
p.m. The counsel would submit that evidence of the Doctor-PW7
is very clear as to the time since death, Postmortem report which
is marked as PW17 is very clear that time since death is 12 to 24
hours. The counsel would submit that postmortem was
conducted on the next day at 02.00 p.m. and the same
corresponds to the timings of the last seen theory of the
prosecution is that in the late night both accused and deceased
were together. The counsel also would submit that PW3 and
accused both were loitering having consumed the alcohol. The
counsel would submit that recovery is also proved by examining
PW4 and his evidence is consistent regarding recovery i.e. T-shirt
and pant and Exhibit P10 is the mahazar for recovery. The
counsel also would submit that the evidence of PW7-Doctor is
very clear that it is a case of homicide. The accused in his
evidence did not deny the incriminating circumstances that both
of them were together in the previous night; and when the blood
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
stains were found in the shirt of the accused, he ought to have
given explanation, but he was very silent.
7. The counsel also observed that the accused also had
sustained injuries and to that effect also there is no any
explanation and Exhibit P22 wound certificate is also clear. The
accused was arrested on 10.12.2022. All the circumstances
clearly point out the role of the accused in committing the
murder. Hence, the trial judge rightly appreciated both oral and
documentary evidence.
8. In reply to this argument, the counsel for the appellant
would submit that the body was found on the next day and there
was no motive, none of the witnesses speak about the
involvement of this accused and unless chain of circumstances is
proved, question of convicting the accused does not arise and
hence it requires interference of this Court.
9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant as
well as the counsel appearing for the State, the points that arise
consideration of this Court are:
(1) Whether the trial judge committed an error in
convicting the accused for the offence punishable
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
under Section 302 of IPC believing the circumstantial
evidence and whether it requires interference of this
Court?
(2) What order?
10. The case of prosecution is that on 08.12.2022 at 11.30
p.m., in the open space of property bearing No. 319/1 belonging
to one Sivaganga situated at Vadagandi Village, the accused
enraged on the insistence of the deceased to offer liquor,
committed the murder with a big stone.
11. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of the
Doctor regarding homicidal death is concerned. Postmortem
Report Exhibit P17 clearly discloses that injuries sustained over
head was caused by hard and blunt objects. The Doctor who
conducted the postmortem also deposed that cause of death is
due to hemorrhagic shock due to injury sustained over the head
by hard and blunt object; and having considered the evidence of
PW7, nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PW7, which
is put in respect of the cause of death. The Doctor also
categorically says that he has furnished the opinion of cause of
death of deceased when the FSL report was sent to him and he
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
gave the final opinion; in the cross-examination except the
answer elicited from the mouth of PW7 that if stone like MO1
falls on a person's leg, a fracture likely to occur but he denied
the suggestion that if a person falls on stone like MO1, the
injuries are not likely to occur, the same was denied and there is
no serious dispute regarding the nature of injury and cause of
death. Hence this Court has to accept that it is a case of
homicide.
12. Now this Court has to consider the other evidence available
before the Court. The law was set in motion based on the
complaint given by PW3 which is marked as Exhibit P5 wherein
the case of prosecution is narrated that she found the dead body
on the information, and in the complaint it is stated that the
murder might have committed in between 06.30 p.m. and in the
early morning before 07.30 as he left the house at 06.30 p.m.
but he did not turn up and specifically stated that someone
committed the murder using the stone. The contents of the
complaint also deposed by PW3 in her evidence and she
identifies her signature in the complaint-Exhibit P5. In the
evidence also she says that CW19 and CW20 last seen the
accused and deceased in the previous night and the same was
- 10 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
informed to her; MOs 1 to 4 are also identified by her; photos
were taken in terms of Exhibit P4 at the time of spot mahazar. In
her cross-examination, except eliciting that near the Bilgi cross,
more vehicles will move and there are shops and tea shops in
the said place, nothing is elicited. It is also suggested that if
anybody scream at the spot, the same will be heard by Lamani
Thanda people who were staying in the hut; there were number
of stones lying at the spot. It is elicited that her husband was
consuming alcohol from last two years. The witness also says
that her husband informed that accused also used to accompany
him. In her cross-examination, suggestion was made that due to
influence of alcohol, deceased fell down on the stone and
sustained injuries but nothing is elicited with regard to the last
seen theory which she has spoken in paragraph number 4 of the
chief evidence and even not denied in the cross-examination.
13. Now Court has to take note of the evidence of PW8. In his
evidence PW8 deposes that he knows both the deceased and also
the accused. His evidence is that when he was in the Pan Shop in
the previous night along with CW19, accused and deceased went
towards Sai bar at around 11 o'clock and thereafter accused only
came back and they closed the shop at 12.30 and went to their
- 11 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
residence. In the early morning he came to know about the
murder of the deceased, he had informed the same to the Police.
In the cross-examination, he admits that there are other shops
by the side of his shop and also admits that number of people
visit his shop and there are more tea shops in the said cross.
When a suggestion was made that when number of people come
to his shop, he cannot identify but witness categorically says that
accused used to come to his shop for purchasing of the Beedi. In
the further cross examination, it is elicited with regard to the
location of the place. He admits that whoever visits the Sai Bar
cannot be seen from him. But his evidence is very clear that both
of them having consumed the alcohol and came to his shop.
Having considered this evidence, it is very clear that he had
found both accused and deceased at 11 o'clock and accused
alone came back while returning and nothing is elicited from the
mouth of this witness that he did not notice both of them in the
late night and no serious dispute regarding last seen.
14. The other witness is PW9, he says that there was a family
function of marriage and both accused and deceased with the
influence of alcohol came there and started dancing along with
them, at that time CW21 scolded them and sent them out, and
- 12 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
next day he came to know that deceased was murdered. This
fact was informed to the police. This witness was also subjected
to cross examination. In the cross examination, he says that
accused was moving near his house and he had seen earlier.
When they started dancing with their woman folk, sent him to go
out. In the cross-examination, except suggesting that both of
them did not come to the place, nothing is elicited. However, this
witness says that both accused and deceased regularly used to
consume alcohol and moving around. Suggestion was made that
on the particular date accused and deceased consumed the
alcohol and hence this suggestion is very clear that accused and
deceased went near their function and not disputed the very
presence of accused and deceased that both of them were there
in the previous night and function was also started after 11 pm.
Having considered the evidence of PW8 and PW9 it is very clear
that both of them had seen the accused and deceased in the
previous night. Hence the prosecution has proved the last seen
theory.
15. The other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is
blood stained cloth of the accused were seized. PW4 in his
evidence deposes before the Court that he was called by the
- 13 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
Police and motorcycle was seized by drawing the mahazar in
terms of Exhibit P6 and photo was taken in terms of Exhibit P7
and the owner of the vehicle who has been examined as PW10
comes before the Court and deposes that this accused was
working with him and using the motorcycle which was seized in
the Police Station at the instance of the accused and the owner
got released the vehicle from the Court. It is also his evidence
that accused pointed out the spot where he committed the
murder and mahazar was drawn in terms of Exhibit P8 and photo
was taken. At this juncture itself this Court can take note of the
fact that it was not discovery as per the accused and the place of
incident was known to others since body was found in the very
same place. This evidence cannot be relied upon, however, the
evidence of PW4 is very clear that accused led them and
produced his cloth stating that he was wearing those clothes at
the time of the incident and there were blood stains in the cloth
and in his presence and also CW6 panchanama was drawn and
T-shirt and pant were seized, and sketch was also prepared, he
identified signature in Exhibit P10 and also the sketch Exhibit P11
so also the photo Exhibit P12. In the cross-examination of this
witness, it is only elicited that he was having an acquaintance
- 14 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
with Bilagi Town Police. But suggestion was made that he was a
stock witness and the same was denied. Except the general
denial that accused did not lead them to spot and also produced
any cloth, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. The
evidence of PW4 is consistent with regard to the recovery of
cloth of the accused.
16. It is also important to note that the prosecution mainly
relies upon Exhibit P10 seizure of the cloth and so also relies
upon the FSL report marked as Exhibit P20. It is very clear that
Article Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were stained with
human blood 'AB" group. The FSL report is also very clear that
the cloth which was seized at the instance of the accused were
also stained with very same blood and including the clothes of
the deceased, and accused also has not given any explanation
either in statement u/S 313 CrPC and also not led any evidence.
The accused ought to have given explanation when the material
goes against him with regard to the seizure of his cloth and the
same contains the blood of the 'AB' group. Hence the other
circumstances involving the accused in the crime substantiate
the case of the prosecution.
- 15 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
17. The third circumstance is the accused also had sustained
injuries and he was taken to the hospital after his arrest, is also
not in dispute and document Exhibit P22, wound certificate
belongs to the accused. Having perused document Exhibit P22, it
is clear that accused had sustained the injuries on the dorsum of
left foot and this accused was taken to the hospital on the day of
arrest on 10.12.2022 at 08.45 p.m. and injury was simple in
nature and the same might be caused due to part coming in
contact with hard and rough surface object. With regard to the
injury is concerned also there is no any explanation on the part
of the accused. The evidence of the Doctor is also very clear with
regard to the nature of injury sustained by the accused. The
nature of injury sustained by the accused is also proved by the
prosecution and no explanation on the part of the accused.
18. The evidence of Investigating Officer is also very clear with
regard to the recording or statement of PWs 8 and 9 immediately
after the incident with regard to the last seen evidence and also
the blood stained clothes were seized at the instance of the
accused. In the cross examination of Investigating Officer
nothing is elicited to disbelieve the same. Apart from that,
independent evidence of PW4 is also very clear regarding seizure
- 16 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
of the cloth at the instance of the accused and seizure of the
cloth is also nothing but a discovery at the instance of the
accused and no one had seen the same and he took the panch
witness also the Investigating Officer and produced the same
which was hidden by him.
19. No doubt the prosecution case is with regard to the motive
is concerned that the deceased insisted the accused to offer
liquor and by enraged by the same, the accused committed the
murder by using the stone. No doubt there was no any pre-ill-
will between them. It is also important to note that record clearly
discloses that both of them were addicted to the alcohol and the
same was spoken by PW3 that deceased was addicted from last
two years. The evidence of the witnesses is also very clear that
on the previous day night both of them consumed the alcohol
that is spoken by PW9. They noticed that both of them started
dancing with family members and they were sent out.
20. Furthermore, in the case of circumstantial evidence, motive
is significant and even if it is significant also the Court cannot
brush aside the evidence available on record. The trial judge,
having taken note of the evidence available on record,
- 17 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
particularly the legal position regarding circumstantial evidence,
considered the Judgment of Apex Court in 1989 Supp (2) SCC
706 (Padala Veera Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh) and
took note that when the case is rested upon the circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established,
and those circumstances should be of a definite tendency,
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and
circumstances should be taken cumulatively, should form a chain
so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that
within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else, and in order to sustain conviction, chain
link must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
21. In the case on hand also there was no any explanation on
the part of the accused with regard to the incriminating
circumstances pointed out during the recording of statement u/S
313 CrPC. The trial judge also took note of the factual aspect of
motive is that motive is not an essential ingredient of an offence,
and the question of motive need not be considered when the
evidence is clear that particular accused was the assailant and
- 18 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
therefore there is no burden of proof on the prosecution based
on the existence of any motive, relying upon the Judgment in
1972 Cri.L.J. 1668 (Surajpal Singh Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh) considering the Apex Court Judgment and further
considering the Apex Court Judgment of AIR 1963 ORI. 33
(State Vs. Durga Charan Bank), took note that motive is only
indispensable for conviction of the accused and when the facts
are clear and the same is immaterial.
22. The trial judge also took note of last seen theory, relying
upon the judgment of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram
(2006) 12 SCC 254, and came to the conclusion that the same
is also an additional link of last seen theory, and considered the
evidence of PW8 and PW9. The trial judge also took note of
voluntary statement of the accused as per Exhibit P28 and in
terms of the voluntary statement, accused led the Investigating
Officer and also the panch witness to the place where he
committed the murder and also the clothes were produced which
were blood stained worn by him at the time of the incident.
Exhibit P10 is the mahazar to that effect. The evidence of PW4 is
consistent regarding seizure is concerned and he has supported
the case of the prosecution and nothing is elicited. The spot
- 19 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
which was shown by the accused is not admissible except
recovery of stained cloth. The learned trial Judge taken note of
the FSL report which reveals that the clothes of the accused were
also stained with the very same blood group. So also with
regard to the place of occurrence is concerned, no dispute by the
defence and only suggestion was made to the witness that
deceased fell down on the stone, sustained injuries and
succumbed to the injuries. Apart from that even medical
evidence is also taken note of and during course of cross
examination by the defence itself suggested that the same is not
the lonely place and the same is busy place.
23. All these circumstances point out only the accused only
committed the murder. When reasoning was given by the trial
Court considering the prosecution evidence, we do not find any
grounds to come to a other conclusion that accused has not
committed the murder. The trial judge in detail considered the
material on record both oral evidence as well as the
documentary evidence, which point out the role of the accused in
committing the murder. Hence the trial Judge has not committed
any error in convicting the accused and sentencing and the
grounds which have been urged during the course of argument
- 20 -
CRL.A.NO.100233 OF 2025
by the counsel appearing to the appellant, we do not find any
force in the submission. Hence it is not a case for interference by
this Court. Accordingly, we answer the point No. 1 in the
negative.
24. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following Order.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed. Judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court is confirmed.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
bvv
CT-PA
