[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Kemparaju vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
CRL.A No. 263 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH 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.263 OF 2021 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1345 OF 2018 (C)
IN CRL.A No.263/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O. THAMMAIAH
RESIDENT OF THIPPAGONDANA HALLI
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL-562 130.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA AND:
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU - 562 157.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
CRL.A No. 263 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018
HC-KAR
CONVICTION DATED 18-7-2018 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.90 OF 2016 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 498A OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO.1345/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
RESIDENT OF YAMAPURA VILLAGE
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-562 127.
2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O. CHIKKARAMAIAH
RESIDENT OF HABBUTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 107.
3. SMT. MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O. KRISHNAPPA
RESIDING AT ANCHEPALYA VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 073.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H.L. JAYARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
CRL.A No. 263 of 2021
C/W CRL.A No. 1345 of 2018
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION DATED 18-7-2018 PASSED BY THE VIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.90 OF
2016 C/W SESSIONS CASE NO.156 OF 2016 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.3, 4 AND 5 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114 AND 498A OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for
appellant/accused No.1, Sri H.L. Jayaramu, learned counsel for
the appellants/accused Nos.3 to 5 and Smt. Rashmi Patel,
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State.
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
2. Crl.A.No.263/2021 is filed by accused No.1
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 18.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w
S.C.No.156/2016 by learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby accused
No.1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay
fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for
further period of two years and simple imprisonment for three
years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A IPC and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for 9 months.
3. Crl.A.No.1345/2018 is filed by accused Nos.3 to
5 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 18.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.90/2016 c/w
S.C.No.156/2016 by learned VIII Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby accused
Nos.3 to 5 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 114 IPC, in default to undergo further
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
simple imprisonment for further period of two years and simple
imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, in default to
undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months.
4. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is
that accused No.1 married the deceased about 10 years ago,
and they have an 8-year-old daughter named Nandita. Accused
No.2 had sold his land and divided the sale proceeds among his
daughters, accused Nos.3 to 5. He also gave the deceased,
Bagyamma, a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which she kept in a fixed
deposit (FD). Accused No.1 was pressuring the deceased to
withdraw the said amount and hand it over to him. In this
regard, all the accused persons were physically and mentally
harassing the deceased. It is further alleged that accused
Nos.1 to 5 were discussing, in the house of accused Nos.1 and
2 at Thippagondanahalli about transfer of land in the name of
accused No.2 to accused Nos.3 to 5. The deceased objected to
the proposal of giving any share to the daughters.
Consequently, she was subjected to ill-treatment. A panchayat
was conducted, during which the accused were advised not to
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
harass the deceased, and the deceased was also pacified.
Despite this, accused Nos.2 to 5 allegedly instigated accused
No.1 to do away with the deceased, stating that there would be
no trouble if she died.
5. On 22.12.2015 at about 5:00 a.m., in the
kitchen, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased on the head with
a machete and also struck her on the face with his hands,
resulting in her death. Subsequently, a case was registered,
the police investigated the matter, recorded the statements of
witnesses, and filed the charge sheet. The accused did not
plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution examined witnesses PWs.1 to
13 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The prosecution
also marked Material Objects (MOs) 1 to 10, which included the
sickle, the victim's clothes, pillow cover, bed sheet, and the
blood-stained baniyan and shirt of accused No.1, marked as
MOs.9 and 10. Accused No.1 adduced defence evidence by
examining DWs.1 to 3 and did not mark any documents on his
behalf.
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
7. The trial Court, having considered the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, convicted accused
No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A
of IPC. The trial Court also convicted accused Nos.3 to 5 for
the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 498A of IPC.
Accused No.2 died during the pendency of the trial, and
therefore, the case against him stood abated.
8. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1
contended that the Sessions Judge committed an error in
holding that the prosecution had proved the case against
accused No.1. The counsel vehemently argued that the
incident took place in the year 2015 and that the couple had
lived together for about 10 years since their marriage in 2005,
during which there were no serious disputes between them.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that the
allegation is that the injuries to the head were caused by the
use of a sickle. It was contended that when PW1 came to the
house of the deceased, he noticed the sickle at the spot.
However, this version is contrary to the evidence of PW5 and
PW6, who deposed that the sickle was seized from a bush in
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
the presence of panch witnesses. The learned counsel
submitted that the alleged recovery of the sickle is doubtful and
has not been properly proved. It was contended that the
evidence of PW5 and PW6 is contradictory. Both witnesses
stated that they had seen the accused throwing the sickle;
however, according to the Investigating Officer, the place of
recovery was about half a kilometre away from the place of the
incident. There are material contradictions in the evidence of
PW5 and PW6 with regard to the recovery of the sickle,
particularly when they claim to have witnessed the accused
throwing it.
10. The learned counsel further contended that the
prosecution has not led any convincing evidence to establish
any enmity or motive on the part of the accused to take the life
of the deceased. There is no direct eyewitness to the incident,
and PW5 and PW6 are only circumstantial witnesses. It was
argued that the prosecution has failed to establish each link in
the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The learned counsel appearing for accused
Nos.3 to 5 vehemently contended that, in the first instance, the
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
charge sheet was filed only against accused No.1, and
subsequently, a split-up charge sheet was filed against accused
Nos.2 to 5. It was argued that there is no proximate or
credible material to implicate accused Nos.3 to 5 in the alleged
offence, only PW1 has stated that accused Nos.3 to 5 instigated
accused No.1 over the phone; however, no mobile phone was
seized, nor was any supporting material collected by the
prosecution to substantiate such an allegation.
12. It was further contended that PW9, the father
of the deceased, did not make any specific allegations against
accused Nos.3 to 5. PW5 deposed that only accused Nos.1 and
2 were subjecting the deceased to harassment. PW6 also
categorically stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 were not visiting
the house and that only accused No.5 used to visit occasionally.
Therefore, it was argued that there is no material placed before
the Court to connect accused Nos.3 to 5 with the commission of
the crime.
13. Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court
Government Pleader, appearing for the State, submitted that
PW1 has specifically spoken against accused Nos.3 to 5.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
Though PW9 has not made any allegations against them, the
material available on record clearly indicates that the deceased
had objected to the proposal of giving a share in the property
to accused Nos.3 to 5. It was contended that when the father
attempted to transfer a share in the property in favour of the
daughters, disputes arose between the parties. Therefore,
there was a motive, and accused Nos.3 to 5 instigated accused
No.1 to take away the life of the deceased.
14. The learned HCGP further vehemently
contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is
clear and cogent. PW1 has deposed that accused No.1 was
subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment. On receiving
information from PW5 and PW6, PW1 rushed to the spot and
found the dead body of the deceased. PW10 has spoken about
the panchayat proceedings. With regard to the recovery, PW4,
the panch witness, has categorically deposed about the same,
and there has been no effective cross-examination, except for a
single line of cross-examination.
15. The learned HCGP further submitted that the
evidence of PW5 and PW6 is clear and consistent, as both
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
witnesses have deposed that they saw the accused leaving the
house in the early morning at about 5:30 a.m., carrying a
sickle, which was stained with blood. Their evidence, according
to the prosecution, clearly establishes that the accused alone
committed the murder.
16. It was contended that the trial Court, after
taking into consideration all these factors, rightly convicted the
accused. The prosecution also emphasized that the incident
took place inside the house of the accused, and no explanation
was offered by him as to how the murder occurred within his
house, which is an additional circumstance against him. The
trial Court, upon considering the material on record, accepted
the case of the prosecution. It observed that the only
discrepancy was in the evidence of PW1, who stated that he
found the sickle at the spot. However, the spot mahazar does
not disclose the presence of the sickle at the scene of
occurrence. The trial Court held that this minor discrepancy in
the evidence of PW1 cannot be treated as fatal to the
prosecution case. Accordingly, it concluded that the
prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
17. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for accused No.1, the learned counsel appearing for accused
Nos.3 to 5, and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the State, and upon giving our anxious
consideration to the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, the following points arise for consideration before
this Court:
1. Whether the trial Court committed an
error in convicting accused Nos.3 to 5 for the
offences punishable under Sections 114 and
498A of the Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the trial Court committed an
error in convicting accused No.1 for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and
498A of the Indian Penal Code?
3. Whether the impugned judgment and
order of conviction call for interference by this
Court?
Reg. Point No.1
18. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/accused Nos.3 to 5 and the learned HCGP appearing
for the respondent-State, it is not in dispute that the marriage
between accused No.1 and the deceased took place in the year
2005. The incident occurred in the year 2015, and they had
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
lived together for about 10 years, particularly along with
accused No.2 and his wife.
19. It has emerged in the evidence that PW6 has
categorically stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 were not visiting
the house and that only accused No.5 used to visit occasionally.
The evidence against accused Nos.3 to 5 consists solely of an
omnibus statement made by PW1 that they were instigating
accused No.1 over the phone. However, no material has been
collected to substantiate the allegation of instigation against
accused Nos.3 to 5. Even PW1 has not spoken about any
specific instance of instigation by accused Nos.3 to 5 to accused
No.1.
20. The learned counsel for the appellants has also
brought to the notice of this Court that PW9, the father of the
deceased, has not made any allegations against accused Nos.3
to 5. Upon considering the material on record, it is evident that
except for the statement of PW1 alleging that accused Nos.3 to
5 were instigating accused No.1 over the phone, no evidence
has been collected, such as call detail records or any other
supporting material.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
21. Further, it is not in dispute that accused Nos.3
to 5 were already married and living separately. In order to
invoke Section 498A as well as Section 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, there must be cogent material before the Court
establishing cruelty or instigation. In the present case, there is
no material to show that accused Nos.3 to 5 subjected the
deceased to either mental or physical cruelty.
22. In the absence of substantive evidence against
accused Nos.3 to 5, we are of the considered view that the trial
Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence on
record and in convicting them. Accordingly, Point No.1 is
answered in the affirmative, holding that the trial Court erred in
convicting accused Nos.3 to 5 for the offences punishable under
Sections 114 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Reg. Point No.2
23. The case of the prosecution is that accused
No.1 committed the murder by using a sickle. The medical
evidence given by the doctor clearly shows that the deceased
sustained 13 injuries. The Post-Mortem report (Ex.P6) clearly
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
discloses the nature of the injuries. The doctor was examined
as PW11, and even during the course of cross-examination, it
was suggested that the death might have occurred between
05:30 a.m. and 06:30 a.m. In such circumstances, there is no
dispute with regard to the time of death.
24. Now, coming to the role of accused No.1. The
evidence of PWs.5 and 6 clearly indicates that the accused was
seen proceeding from the house with a sickle, and they have
also deposed that he threw the same into a bush. It is not in
dispute that the said sickle was recovered from the bush, and
PW4 has categorically deposed regarding the recovery. There
is no effective cross-examination on this aspect. Only a single
line of cross-examination was made with regard to the
recovery. The only suggestion put to PW4 was that MO9 and
MO10 belong to accused No.1 and even the seizure of MO1 (the
sickle), which has already been marked, has not been disputed.
In such circumstances, there is no dispute with regard to the
seizure.
25. The other witnesses are PW2 and PW3. PW2
did not support the case and was partly cross-examined by the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
learned Public Prosecutor with regard to Ex.P2 treating as
hostile. However, the evidence of PW3 is very clear. He has
categorically deposed that the mahazar, Ex.P2, was drawn and
that MO1 to MO4 were seized under the said mahazar. His
evidence has not been disputed and he has not been cross-
examined on this aspect. Therefore, the recovery of MO1 to
MO4 stands proved by the prosecution.
26. The other evidence before the Court pertains to the
seizure of the clothes of the accused, namely the shirt and
baniyan, which are marked as MO9 and MO10. The
Investigating Officer has spoken about the seizure of these
articles. The FSL report has been marked as Ex.P20 by invoking
Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. The report clearly states that MO9
and MO10 were found to contain extensive bloodstains, and the
method of analysis is also detailed in Ex.P20. The opinion of
the FSL is clear that blood was detected, particularly on MO9
and MO10 belonging to the accused cloth. When such being
the case, the document having been marked on 18.06.2018
was not disputed by the defence at the time of marking.
Further, there is no explanation offered by the accused
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
regarding the presence of bloodstains on his clothes. He ought
to have provided an explanation in his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., but no such explanation has been given.
27. The incident took place inside the house of the
accused. The accused has not offered any explanation as
required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, though
he was bound to explain the circumstances, as the occurrence
was within his exclusive knowledge. The incident occurred in
the early morning between 05:30 a.m. and 06:00 a.m., at an
odd hour, and therefore there was no possibility of any third
person entering the house.
28. The bloodstains found on the clothes of the
deceased as well as on MO9 and MO10 (the clothes of the
accused) were of human origin and belonged to blood group 'B'.
The evidence of PW5 and PW6 clearly establishes that they last
seen the accused coming out of the house. No doubt, the
learned counsel for the accused would vehemently contend that
the place of recovery of the sickle was at a distance of half a
kilometre. However, PW5 and PW6 have categorically deposed
before the Court that the accused went carrying the sickle, and
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
the said sickle was found to be bloodstained. The distance of
half a kilometre is not significant in the facts and circumstances
of the case. In the cross-examination of PW5 and PW6, nothing
has been elicited to discredit or disbelieve their evidence. It is
also important to note that in the cross-examination of these
two witnesses, nothing has been elicited to show that there was
any enmity between them and the accused or that they were
falsely deposing against him.
29. Having considered all the materials available
on record, namely the evidence of PW1, PW9, PW5 and PW6,
the medical evidence of PW11, the recovery witnesses, the
evidence of PW3 with regard to the seizure of the articles at the
spot under Ex.P2, and the evidence of PW4 regarding the
recovery of the sickle at the instance of the accused from the
bush, it is clear that the prosecution case stands proved. The
evidence of PW4 has not been disputed. Similarly, the
evidence of PW3 has also not been challenged by the defence.
30. Further, the time of occurrence suggested by
the defence itself, namely between 05:30 a.m. and 06:00 a.m.,
goes against the accused. On an overall consideration of all
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
these materials on record, the role of accused No.1 has been
clearly established by the prosecution witnesses, and it is
evident that accused No.1 alone committed the murder of his
wife.
31. With regard to the offence under Section 498A
IPC, no witness has spoken about the accused subjecting the
deceased to mental cruelty or assault on any prior occasion. In
such circumstances, the trial Court failed to take note of this
material aspect and committed an error in invoking Section
498A IPC. There must be positive and cogent evidence before
the Court to establish that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A.
32. However, there is no discussion in the
judgment regarding the basis for invoking Section 498A, nor is
there any evidence on record to show that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty. The material on record indicates that the
accused and the deceased lived together, along with the
parents of the accused, for about 10 years. There are no
allegations of cruelty during the period of marriage from 2005
to 2015, except for the present incident of murder. Therefore,
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Consequently,
accused No.1 is entitled for acquittal for the said offence, and
the point is answered accordingly.
33. In view of the discussions made above, we
pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Crl.A.No.263/2021 filed by the appellant/accused
No.1 is allowed-in-part. The judgment and
order dated 18.07.2018 passed in
S.C.No.90/2016 c/w S.C.No.156/2016 by learned
VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Rural District, Bengaluru is modified.
2. Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 498A of IPC. However,
the offence punishable under Section 302 is
confirmed.
3. Crl.A. No.1345/2018 is allowed. The conviction
and sentence passed against accused Nos.3 to 5
are hereby set aside, and they are acquitted of
the charges levelled against them.
4. Bail bond executed by accused Nos.3 to 5, if any,
stand cancelled.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7080-DB
HC-KAR
5. If any fine amount has been deposited by
accused Nos.3 to 5, the same shall be refunded
to them on proper identification.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
