[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Bharatha H A on 5 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB
CRL.A No. 1797 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1797 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY THE PSI
AJJAMPURA POLICE STATION
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
BHARATHA H A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
KARNATAKA S/O LATE ANNAPPA NAYAKA
R/O HOSALLI THANDYA
TARIKERE TALUK - 577228
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB
CRL.A No. 1797 of 2022
HC-KAR
11.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.203/2017
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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)
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 11.11.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.203/2017 for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC by the I
Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.
2. Heard the learned SPP-II Vijaykumar Majage,
appearing for the appellant/State.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that
the daughter of CW1 - Mylaranaika by name Arathi Bai was
given in marriage to one Annappanaika. About 2½ years back,
the husband of Arathi Bai died and later, Arathi Bai was living
NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB
HC-KAR
with juvenile in conflict with law (hereinafter called JICWL),
who is her son and her mother-in-law CW5 Savitribai. Arathi
Bai is a drunkard and she used to consume alcohol everyday
and used to fell on the road. She was also involved in illegal
activity with other men. Though JICWL and CW5 advised Arathi
Bai, she did not mend her ways. On 21.11.2015, at about
10.30 a.m., Arathi Bai consumed alcohol and when JICWL
questioned, she tried to kick on his private part. Being
disgusted, JICWL pushed Arathi Bai and pierced knife into her
throat several times. As a result, Arathi Bai died. Later, in order
to screen the weapon of offence, JICWL took the knife and hid
it beside the stone of Huliyammadevi tank situated at Hosahalli
Thandya village. The complainant lodged the complaint to the
PSI of Ajjampura Police Station. The respondent police
registered the case against JICWL. After investigation,
submitted the charge sheet against the JICWL for the offences
of Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
4. On receipt of the charge sheet, the Juvenile Justice
Board perused the same and took cognizance for the offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and thereafter
NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB
HC-KAR
subjected for trial. As there was sufficient material, the Board,
framed the charges and considering the evidence available on
record particularly, PW1 to PW15 and documents at Ex.P1 to
P32 and material object at MO1 to MO5, convicted the accused.
The judgment and order of conviction was challenged before
the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.203/2017.
5. The Appellate Court having considered the grounds
which have been urged, taken note of that whether the
prosecution proves that the JICWL has committed the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC beyond
reasonable doubt and whether Juvenile Justice Board has
properly appreciated the oral land documentary evidence on
record and whether the appellant/JICWL proves that judgment
of the Juvenile Justice Board is perverse. Having reassessed
both the oral and documentary evidence available on record,
the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt and held that genesis of the case has not been properly
considered by the Trial Court i.e., testimony of PW10, the ASI,
who has arrested the JICWL and also considered the material
NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB
HC-KAR
on record with regard to the recovery of weapon which was not
sent for FSL and no witnesses have supported the case of
prosecution and apart from that independent witnesses have
also turned hostile and nothing is elicited from the mouth of the
witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution. In the absence
of any FSL report with regard to the seizure of article with
regard to the blood stains is concerned, the Appellate Court
comes to the conclusion that the Juvenile Board committed an
error in appreciating the evidence available on the record since
it was absolutely essential to find out whether MO1-knife had
any traces of blood and if so, whether said blood belonged to
the deceased. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not sent
the same to the FSL and not obtained any report and Appellate
Court given the reasons for acquitting the appellant/accused in
paragraphs 21 and 22 and reversed the judgment of the Trial
Court.
6. Being aggrieved by the divergent finding of both the
Courts, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
7. The main contention of the learned SPP appearing
for the appellant/State before this Court is that prosecution has
NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB
HC-KAR
examined 15 witnesses. The counsel would vehemently contend
that though independent witnesses have turned hostile, there is
a recovery and the incident was taken place in the house of
JICWL. All these factors were not considered by the Appellate
Court. Hence, the very reasoning given by the Appellate Court
is erroneous. Thus, interference of this Court is required and
prays for admission.
8. Having considered the arguments of the learned
counsel SPP-II Vijaykumar Majage and also on perusal of the
material record particularly, the grounds which have been
urged by the learned SPP wherein the SPP vehemently contend
that there is a recovery and the incident was taken place in the
house of JICWL. When the incident was taken place, accused
ought to have explained the same. Having considered the
material on record, it discloses that the Appellate Court has
considered the material on record in a proper perspective
holding that there is no any FSL report with regard to the
seizure of the article is concerned. Apart from that there was no
any cogent evidence before the Court with regard to the
recovery is concerned and recovery witnesses have also turned
NC: 2026:KHC:179-DB
HC-KAR
hostile and Independent witnesses have also turned hostile.
Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to admit
the appeal to come to a conclusion that the matter requires
reconsideration as there is no material in the appeal to admit
as there is no error on the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of
evidence.
9. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SN
