[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nagaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.115/2021
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJU
S/O SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.145, ASHRAYA HOUSE
HOSABALU NAGAR
SINGAPURA VILLAGE
VIDYARANAYAPURA
BENGALURU-560097
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIDYARANAYAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU DISTRICT
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372(2)
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DATED 15.10.2019 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 21.10.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1227/2015 ON THE FILE
OF LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.02.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the
judgment of conviction dated 15.10.2019 and order of
sentence dated 21.10.2019 passed in S.C.No.1227/2015 on
the file of LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru and consequently, acquit the appellant/accused for
the charges levelled against him.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is
that one Manjula, the daughter of PW1, got married to one
Anand and he died about 2½ years back due to electric shock.
Thereafter, the accused got introduced himself to the said
Manjula and assured PW1 that he would marry her daughter
Manjula and took her to his house No.145 of Singapura village
and both of them were residing in that house from last 4
months of the alleged incident. The accused subjected the
deceased for cruelty and hence she came back to her
mother's house. On 29.07.2015, the accused took the
deceased forcefully to his house even though PW1 did not
agree to send her back. On the next day, though PW1 tried to
contact the accused, he did not respond to the call. On the
next day i.e., on 31.07.2015, accused called PW1 and told
that the said Manjula is no more. Hence, PW1 and her another
daughter went to the spot and found the dead body of her
daughter Manjula and accused was also present in that house.
Hence, PW1 gave the complaint against the accused and case
was registered against him.
4. Based on the complaint, accused was arrested,
spot mahazar and inquest mahazar were drawn, post mortem
was conducted and pillow was recovered at the instance of the
accused in the presence of panch witnesses. The witnesses'
evidence was also recorded and after completion of the
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The
accused did not plead guilty and claims for trial. Hence, the
prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to PW14 and got
marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P20 and seized the
material objects at MO1 and MO2. The accused was subjected
to 313 statement and he did not adduce any defence
evidence.
5. The Trial Court having heard the arguments of the
prosecution as well as defence counsel comes to the
conclusion that case is rest upon the circumstances evidence
and all the circumstances goes against the accused and held
that accused has committed the murder of Smt. Manjula and
guilt has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. Thus, convicted the accused and imposed sentenced
against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused/appellant
before this Court.
7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the appellant in this appeal is that the case is rest upon the
circumstantial evidence. The counsel would contend that in
terms of Ex.P1-complaint, the averments made that the
appellant came and took the deceased on 29.07.2015 and
thereafter, he did not respond to the phone call of PW1 and
only on 31.07.2015, accused called PW1 and informed that
body of her daughter-Manjula was lying and he is unable to
rise the same. Hence, PW1 and her another daughter
immediately rushed the spot and found dead body of Manjula.
The counsel would vehemently contend that though it is
stated that there was a quarrel on 29.07.2015, but for what
purpose, they were quarreling is not given. The counsel would
contend that though in the complaint, PW1 says that accused
came and took her daughter on 29.07.2015, but while giving
the evidence, not given on oath that accused took her
daughter and not spoken anything about the same. The
counsel would vehemently contend that there are
contradictions in the evidence with regard to taking the
deceased by the accused on the particular date since the
evidence of PW4 is contrary to the contents of Ex.P1. The
counsel would submit that cause of death is homicidal i.e.,
due to asphyxia and smothering and the same is not in
dispute. The counsel would contend that there is no motive for
committing the murder of the deceased. When motive for
committing the murder is not proved, the same is significant
in a case of circumstantial evidence, thus, it cannot be held
that accused has committed the murder. The counsel would
submit that PW4 deposes that the deceased did not
accompany with the accused, but says that accused made the
arrangements of autorikshaw and then deceased went in the
autorikshaw to the house of accused. Hence, the evidence of
PW4 is contrary to Ex.P1. The counsel would vehemently
contend that evidence of PW12 also contradictory to the
evidence of PW4 since PW12 says that accused took the
deceased along with him. The counsel would submit that
PW13 deposes before the Court that accused was a tenant
under him. The fact is that accused only called and informed
PW1 about the incident and he was in that house itself when
PW1 and PW4 visited the said house. The counsel submits
that the Court has to see the conduct of the accused. If he
really committed the murder, he would have escaped or
absconded. The counsel would contend that PW7 though
recovery witness, his evidence cannot be considered since the
same not inspires the confidence of the Court. The counsel
would submit that doctor who has been examined as PW8
deposed with regard to the cause of death. The only
circumstances is that the death has taken place in the house
of the accused and the same cannot be a sole ground to
convict the accused. Unless each and every circumstances are
proved, the question of convicting the accused does not arise.
There is a weak piece of evidence before the Court and
answers elicited from the mouth of witnesses were not taken
note of by the Trial Court in a proper perspective while
convicting the accused.
8. The counsel for the appellant in support of his
arguments, relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in (2021 ) 5 SCC 626 in the case of SHIVAJI
CHINTAPPA PATIL vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and
brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in
paragraph 27 wherein it is held that motive would not be
relevant if case is rest upon the direct evidence. In a case of
circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to
complete the chain of circumstances. The counsel submits
that in the case on hand, no such motive is established and
the same is not attributed by the prosecution. In absence of
motive, there cannot be any conviction. Hence, the counsel
would submit that the above referred judgment will come to
the aid of the appellant and prayed to acquit the appellant.
9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that
PW1, PW4, PW12 depose before the Court with regard to the
last seen theory is concerned. These witnesses categorically
submit that accused came and took the deceased on
29.07.2015. Their evidence is not rebutted or controverted by
the defence. The counsel would submit that the house in
which the dead body was found belongs to PW13 and PW13
categorically deposes that the premises was given to the
accused for rent to an amount of Rs.1,000/- and though there
was no any agreement of tenancy, document of Ex.P9 - sale
deed is produced before the Court to show that the same
belongs to PW13 and the same is not disputed by the defence.
The counsel would contend that PW1 was informed by accused
that her daughter Manjula is no more and he was very much
present in the house when PW1 came to the spot but accused
did not give any complaint in this regard. Thus, the Court has
to take note of the conduct of the accused. But defence
contention is that somebody else exploited her for sexual act
and committed the murder and the same is not substantiated.
The mother of the deceased came and gave the complaint
against the accused. It is not disputes the fact that death was
in the house of the accused. The counsel also submits that the
cause of death is also an account of smothering and the
doctor-PW8 deposes the same and also found five injuries
which clearly discloses in the PM report. The counsel would
submit that even inquest also conducted in the house of the
accused. The counsel would vehemently contend that though
defence was taken that victim was subjected to sexual act,
there is no any medical evidence before the Court to show
that before committing the murder of the victim, she was
subjected to sexual act and even effective cross-examination
of PW8-doctor was not made to the said fact is concerned.
The counsel would submit that there is no any explanation in
313 statement that how a smothering was made in his
residence and cause of death is also clearly mentioned in
Ex.P5-PM report. The counsel would contend that having
considered all these materials available on record, Trial Court
rightly comes to the conclusion that accused only committed
the murder of the victim. The evidence of PW7 is also very
clear that pillow at MO1 was recovered at the instance of the
accused when accused only pointed out the same to the police
and not concealed the same. The fact is that the same was
used for committing the murder of the victim by smothering.
Hence, the appellant has not made out any case for acquittal
as contended by his counsel. Thus, prayed this Court to
dismiss the appeal.
10. Having considered the submission of the appellant
counsel as well as counsel appearing for the State, the Point
that would arise for the consideration of this appeal is:
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the
sentence imposed by the Trial Court requires
interference of this Court?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
11. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also considering the charge framed
against the accused as well as both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, this Court has to examine the case
of prosecution as well as the defence. No doubt, the case is
rest upon the circumstantial evidence. When the case is rest
upon the circumstantial evidence, each chain link must be
established to convict the accused and all the circumstances
must point out the guilt of the accused. Considering the
principles laid down in the judgments of SUBRAMANYA vs
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023) 11 SCC 255; in
the case of SHARAD BIRDICHAND SARDA vs STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA reported (1984) 4 SCC 116; and in the
case of RAJA @ RAJINDER vs. STATE OF HARYANA reported
in (2015) 11 SCC 43, this Court has to re-appreciate the
evidence.
12. Now, this Court has to take note of contents of the
complaint at Ex.P1 wherein it is stated that the deceased
husband-Anand was passed away 2½ years back due to
electric shock and there is no dispute in this regard. The case
of complainant-PW1 before the police in terms of Ex.P1 is that
subsequent to the death of her son-in-law, the accused came
in contact with her daughter - Manjula and he assured that he
would give a life to her daughter-Manjula. It is the evidence of
PW1 that about 4 months back, accused took her daughter to
his house No.145, Singapura Village and both of them residing
there. The deceased was insisting the accused to get marry
her and register the marriage, but, he was assuring that he
would get register the marriage after Ashada. Thereafter, the
deceased was subjected to cruelty by both physical and
mental, hence, she came back to her mother's house. That on
29.07.2015 at 8.00 p.m. accused came and forced PW1 to
send the deceased back to his house, but PW1 refused the
same. Inspite of the said refusal, accused forcefully took the
deceased to his house. On the very next day, PW1 made all
attempt to contact the accused but he did not receive the
phone call of PW1. That on 31.07.2015 at 7.00 a.m., accused
called PW1 and informed that her daughter-Manjula is no
more. Thereafter, PW1 and her another daughter rushed to
the house of the accused and found the dead body of Manjula
and accused was also very much present in the house. Hence,
lodged the complaint on the very same day at about 8.10
a.m. and case was registered and FIR was filed and conducted
the investigation. Hence, law was set in motion.
13. Now, this Court has to consider the evidence of
PW1. PW1 reiterated the averments made in the complaint in
her oral evidence also. PW1 deposed that accused was
assaulting her daughter-Manjula. But not stated about the
incident dated 29.07.2015 in her evidence that taking of her
daughter-Manjula along with accused forcefully. But in her
cross-examination, it is elicited that her daughter-Manjula was
not married the accused and accused only loving her and took
her to his house promising to marry her. But do not
remember the date on which day, he came and made galata.
It is also elicited that she did not give any complaint with
regard to galata and only after the death of her daughter, she
gave the complaint. Though it is not elicited from the mouth
of PW1 in this regard, but defence counsel itself put the
suggestion regarding making of galata and PW1 says that she
was unable to tell the date of galata. But it is elicited that
when accused and her daughter-Manjula did not receive the
call on 30.07.2015, she did not go to the house of the
accused. But categorically says that on 31.07.2015, accused
only called and informed about the death of her daughter.
When a suggestion was made that accused had not committed
murder, she categorically says that accused only committed
the murder since accused and her daughter were only residing
together and no other persons were there with them.
14. Now, this Court has to take note of the evidence of
PW4 who is a sister of the deceased and she also reiterated
the same in the line of evidence of PW1. She categorically
says that on 29.07.2015, accused came and made galata with
the deceased and insisted the deceased to accompany him.
But her sister did not accompany him and accused called and
informed that he is going to send an autorikshaw and come in
the said autorikshaw to his house. Hence, deceased went in
the autorikshaw. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that
deceased went in the autorikshaw. A suggestion was made
that no such galata was made by the accused and the same
was denied. However, it is elicited that the deceased was
going to coolie work and in sometimes, she used to come late
to the house and with regard to the harassment, no complaint
was given by the deceased.
15. The other witness is PW12 in respect of last seen
theory is concerned. PW12 is an independent witness. In his
evidence, he says that accused was working in a tent house
and came in contact with deceased and both of them were
residing in Singapura village in a rented house. This witness
deposed that he witnessed the incident on 29.07.2015 near
the house of PW1 i.e., galata between the accused and
deceased wherein the accused was forcing to take the
deceased back and PW1 refused to send her along with
accused, but accused forcibly took the deceased and found
the dead body of the deceased after two days. This witness
has subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination,
it is elicited that he identified the accused based on the video
which he had seen. There was no any cross examination that
accused did not take the deceased along with him. Even no
suggestion was made that there was no such incident on
29.07.2015 that accused was making galata with PW1 and
even he has not denied that accused forcefully took the
deceased along with him. There is no any effective cross
examination of PW12.
16. Having considered the evidence of PW1, PW4 and
PW12 as well as the contents of the complaint at Ex.P1, it is
very clear that incident was taken place on 29.07.2015 and
the same is not specifically denied in the cross examination of
PW1, PW4 and PW12. No doubt, evidence of PW4 is that
accused has sent the autorikshaw and then the deceased went
to the house of the accused in an autorikshaw. But the
evidence of PW12 is that accused took the deceased along
with him forcibly and the same was not denied in the cross
examination. In the complaint at Ex.P1 also it is specifically
stated by PW1 that accused took her deceased daughter along
with him. But minor discrepancy in the evidence of the
witnesses is that accused did not take the deceased along
with him and she went to the house of accused in an
autorikshaw and the said evidence will not go to the very root
of the case since the very incident dated 29.07.2015 is not
denied by the defence during the course of cross-examination.
These evidences are only with regard to the last seen theory
is concerned and the same could be accepted.
17. Now, the question before this Court is with regard
to death of the victim which has taken place in the house of
the accused. The said fact is not in dispute. Though it is
contended that accused was not residing in the said house,
but the evidence of PW13 is very clear that the accused was a
tenant under him. PW13 though not produced any document
with regard to the tenancy, he had produced Ex.P9 - sale
deed to show that he had purchased the said house and also
categorically deposes that accused was residing in the said
house as a tenant. In the cross-examination of this witness
except eliciting that no document for having given the house
to the accused, but specific suggestion was made that
accused was not residing in the said house and the same was
denied. Though PW2 before the police made the statement
that at his instance, PW13 let out the premises to the accused
but the same is not spoken by PW2 and he turned hostile to
the case of the prosecution and even nothing is elicited from
the prosecution that house was let out by PW13 to accused at
the instance of the PW2. But the fact is that PW13 evidence is
very clear that the accused was residing in the said house
from last 4 to 5 months of the incident. PW13 categorically
says that both accused and the deceased came and requested
to provide the house and agreed to give rent of Rs.1,000/-
and advance of Rs.2,000/- but not given full advance. Hence,
document of rent did not take place. The categorical evidence
is that both the deceased and the accused were staying in the
said house. Having taken note of the evidence of PW13 in the
cross-examination, it is clear that he has not denied the same
except eliciting the answer that no document of tenancy.
18. It is also important to note that PW1 and PW4
categorically depose that on information given by the accused,
they went and found the dead body in the house of the
accused and accused was very much present in the said house
and the said fact is not disputed by the defence. If accused is
not staying in the said house, why he was present along with
dead body is not explained. It is also important to note that
the counsel for the State brought to notice of this Court that
accused has not given the complaint and mother of the
deceased has given the complaint and there is no dispute to
this fact is concerned. It is not in dispute that death was in
the house of the accused. No doubt, counsel appearing for the
appellant brought to notice of this Court that if accused has
committed the murder, he would have escaped from the spot.
But the Court has to take note of the conduct of the accused
and at the same time, the Court also has to take note that
accused did not give any complaint when the death was taken
place in his house. The defence is also that somebody
committed sexual act and murdered the victim. But to that
effect, no evidence at all. The doctor's evidence is very clear
that she was not subjected to any sexual act and even
nothing is suggested to the doctor-PW8 in this regard during
the course of cross-examination. But the fact is that the
deceased had sustained the injuries. In the process of
smothering, deceased had sustained the injuries and even
doctor has given the opinion that the injuries could be caused
in the process of smothering by using MO1-pillow.
19. It is also important to note that MO1 was seized.
No doubt, the was seized in the house of accused itself. The
counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the
same is not a discovery. But the fact is that death was taken
place in the house of the accused. Though PW5 turns hostile
for recovery of pillow, but the evidence of PW6 is very clear
that pillow was there in the house and accused only pointed
out the same and police have seized the same by drawing
mahazar in terms of Ex.P4. No doubt, it is elicited in the cross
examination of PW6 that MO1 would be available everywhere
and police have asked him to sign Ex.P4 and he signed the
same. But no cross was made to PW6 that accused had not
pointed out the pillow and accused did not show the same to
the police and no denial at all in his cross examination. PW7,
who is a Head Constable, in his evidence categorically deposes
that accused only pointed out the pillow and the same was
seized under the mahazar Ex.P4. Even with regard to the
pointing out the pillow was not denied in his cross
examination. There is no effective cross examination with
regard to the seizure of pillow at the instance of the accused.
20. It is a case of the prosecution that accused in his
voluntary statement at Ex.P15 stated that he used the pillow
for committing the murder of the deceased and the same was
seized. Thus, the prosecution has proved with regard to the
recovery of pillow at the instance of the accused. The accused
has not given any explanation in his 313 statement. When
incriminating evidence has put during the course of recording
statement, the accused ought to have given the explanation.
Though defence was taken that somebody committed the
murder of the deceased having subjected her for sexual act.
But there is no evidence before the Court to show that the
deceased was subjected to sexual act. We have already
pointed out that there was no any questions in this regard to
PW8-Doctor. Having perused the evidence of PW8, it is very
clear that the cause of death is due to smothering by using
MO1 and in that process, injuries which have been mentioned
in the PM report could be caused. But in the cross-
examination, except suggesting that he did not write Ex.P5 -
Post Mortem report and post mortem was done through
somebody else, no suggestion that no such injuries could be
caused in the process of smothering and cause of death also
not denied by PW8 in his cross-examination. Ex.P5 is very
clear that there were five injuries on the dead body. Having
taken note of all these materials available on record, the Trial
Court comes to the conclusion that an inference could be
drawn that accused only committed the murder of the
deceased by taking note of conduct of the accused.
21. The other contention of the counsel appearing for
the appellant that no explanation under Section 106 of the
Evidence Act cannot be a sole ground to convict the accused.
The said contention cannot be accepted and that is not the
only ground available before the Court to convict the accused
since each and every circumstances disclose that accused only
committed the murder. The contention of the counsel
appearing for the appellant that there was an admission on
the part of PW4 that the sometimes deceased was coming late
after finishing her coolie work to the house and the same
cannot be a ground to come to a other conclusion that she
might have been murdered by somebody else. But the fact is
that death was taken place in the house of the accused where
both deceased and accused were staying. It is also not in
dispute that both of them are residing together. Though the
suggestion was made that accused was not residing in that
house, the evidence of PW13 is very clear that he only let out
the house to accused and deceased 4 to 5 months back when
both of them went and requested him to provide the house
and the same has not been denied. In keeping the contentions
of the appellate counsel and also the counsel appearing for
the respondent/State as well as the evidence available on
record before the Court, it is very clear that the same is
pointing out the role of the accused in the alleged incident.
22. The other contention of the counsel appearing for
the appellant is that the appellant is in custody for more than
11½ years and the same cannot be ground to acquit the
accused in a case of taking life of a person and the same not
amounts to incarceration. The Trial Court having considered
the material on record, convicted the accused even though
the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence. Having
considered the material on record, it discloses that the
witnesses have spoken with regard to theory of last seen i.e.,
PW1, PW4 and PW12 stating that accused went and quarreled
with the mother of the victim and brought the victim back to
his house. The other witness is PW13 who is the owner of the
house in which the accused and the deceased were residing
together and no explanation was given under Section 106 of
Evidence Act. The other circumstances is accused has not
given the complaint, only mother of the victim gave the
complaint. The accused kept quiet even though he was
present in the house and death was also in his house and
smothering was also noticed by the medical evidence
including the injuries. Though it is contended that death was
by the third party subjecting the victim for sexual act. To
evidence the said fact also no material before the Court either
oral or medical evidence and also not given any explanation in
313 statement by the accused. The medical evidence also
supports the case of the prosecution that cause of death is on
account of asphyxia and smothering. All the chain of
circumstances are established by the prosecution to bring the
fact that accused only committed the murder and minor
discrepancies will not take away the case of the prosecution.
Hence, we do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the
Trial Court since the Trial Court has rightly considered all
these aspects and convicted the accused. Hence, we answer
the above Point accordingly.
Point No.2:
23. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SN
