[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Hanumesha G S/O Bharamappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
CRL.A No. 100182 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100182 OF 2024 (C-)
BETWEEN:
HANUMESHA G. S/O. BHARAMAPPA,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. ANKAMANAHAL-583128,
TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI.PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUDLIGI, REPRESENTED
BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
B SHELAR
Date:
2026.03.11
- RESPONDENT
10:40:44 +0530
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.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 09.03.2023 AND SENTENCE DATED 16.03.2023
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BALLARI IN S.C. NO.34/2020 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT /
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A,
302 OF IPC & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
CRL.A No. 100182 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
accused and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
State.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and
sentening the accused for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-
with default clause for the offence punishable under Section 498-
A and life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.20,000/- with
default clause for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and prayed
this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the
marriage of Marekka took place with the accused about 12 years
ago. After the marriage the accused always used to quarrel with
her demanding money for consuming alcohol. The deceased
refused to give money and hence the accused was torturing her
mentally and physically. Fed up with the same, the deceased
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
went to her parental house. However after conducting
panchayath by CW3, 11, 20 and 21, advised the accused and
hence the accused took the deceased to his house. Again on
05.12.2019 at about 11.30 a.m., in a hut the accused demanded
his wife money for consuming alcohol. When she refused to give
money, he picked up quarrel, took a chopper, assaulted her on
neck, head, beside right eye, near left ear, below the right
elbow, near the left elbow and caused grievous bleeding injuries,
as a result she succumbed to the injuries. This incident was
witnessed by PW2. Immediately she secured PW3 to 5 and all of
them noticed that accused was holding chopper in his hand and
already inflicted injury and on verification, Marekka was found
dead.
4. Based on the complaint of PW1, Police have registered the
complaint, investigated the case and filed charge sheet for the
offences punishable u/S 498-A and 302 of IPC. The same was
initially registered as C.C. No. 163/2020 before the Magistrate
Court and after committal to the jurisdictional District Court it is
numbered as S.C. No. 34/2020. The accused was not granted
bail and hence he is in custody from the date of his arrest.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case and framed
charge against the accused. The accused did not plead guilty
and claims trial. Hence the prosecution examined witnesses as
per PW1 to 19, got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.39 and
material objects as per M.O.1 to 9 are marked. On closure of the
prosecution evidence, the accused was subjected to recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused denied
all incriminating evidence against him but did not lead any
defence evidence. Learned trial Judge considered the materials
on record particularly the evidence of PW2; evidence of PW3 to
5, evidence of the Doctor PW11, postmortem report as per
Ex.P12 and 13; the opinion of the Doctor; and FSL report
Ex.P.10 goes against the accused. Having considered all these
materials available on record, the trial Judge comes to the
conclusion that medical evidence supports the case of the
prosecution, it is a case of homicidal death; so also considering
the evidence of the eyewitness PW2, who is none other than the
daughter of the accused and deceased; nothing elicited from the
mouth of PW2 that she did not witness the incident and also
considering the circumstantial evidence of PWs.3 to 5, comes to
the conclusion that accused only has committed the murder of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
the deceased Marekka, convicted and sentenced. Hence, the
present appeal is filed before this Court.
5. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant before
this Court is that the trial Court has not considered the material
on record, the oral and documentary evidence in proper
perspective, relied upon the irrelevant and contradictory
evidence which is unreliable and unsustainable in law. The
counsel also submits that PW2-daughter of the deceased
deposed in the cross examination that she was playing outside at
the relevant time and she was not present at the spot of the
incident, she went inside only after the incident took place and
called the neighbours. Later neighbours saw Marekka lying in
pool of blood. Hence no-one was present when the alleged
incident occurred. The prosecution also failed to prove the
intention on the part of the accused. Hence the judgment of the
trial Court requires to be set aside.
6. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is
no corroborative piece of evidence before the Court. It is well
settled principle that when there is no direct evidence to prove
the guilt, the Court has to consider the circumstances as to the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
inference of the guilt of the accused to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt. The same is also missing in the case on hand.
The trial Court has failed to adopt the said principle, instead
comes to the conclusion that PW2-eyewitness saw the accused
using MO1 has committed crime, no finger prints were recovered
from the machete and not sent to FSL. The I.O. has falsely
implicated the accused in the crime. There is no material before
the Court that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the
accused and hence the I.O. ought not to have invoked Sec 498-A
of IPC and insert the same in the charge sheet. When there is
no cruelty, question of convicting the accused for the said
offence does not arise. The prosecution has miserably failed to
prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The finding of the
trial Court that accused is guilty, is illegal and liable to be set
aside. The trial Judge also fails to take note of the Exception-1
to Sec. 300 IPC wherein death of woman was culpable homicide
not amounting to murder and thereby committed an error in
convicting the accused for the offence u/S 302 IPC. The entire
evidence has not been properly appreciated. The sentence
imposed by the trial Court is also on the higher side. Hence it
requires interference.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State would
submit that Ex.P.1-complaint is given by the complainant
wherein it is categorically stated that accused was addicted to
bad vices and also when earlier even went and stayed back in
her parental house but panchayath was held, the accused agreed
to take her back and also gave assurance that he would look
after her well. But he committed her murder. The death was
also taken place in the matrimonial house, i.e. in the house of
the accused. The evidence of PW2 is very clear that she deposed
against her father, evidence of PWs.3 to5 is very clear that when
PW2 came and informed about the accused is inflicting injury on
Marekka, all of them rushed to the spot but at that time the
accused inflicted injury and machete was in his hand. Machet
was seized in the case.
8. The counsel also submit that evidence of PW2 and PWs3 to
5 is in consonance with Ex.P.1-complaint wherein specific
allegation is made with regard to subjecting her for cruelty, he
was addicted to bad vices, he used to demand money from the
deceased. The counsel also would submit that the medical
evidence, i.e. Exhibit P.12 and P.13 are also very clear, the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
Doctor PW11 has conducted postmortem and gave opinion as per
Exhibit P.13 that the weapon-Chopper could cause such injuries.
The counsel also submit that Ex.P.17 clearly depicts that incident
had taken place in the house of the accused. He would further
submit that recovery of clothes at the instance of the accused
was made and the same was sent to FSL, the FSL report is also
'positive' in terms of Ex.P.10. The counsel would contend that
when the incriminating materials are put to accused at the time
of recording his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C, there was total denial
and no explanation is offered by the accused. All these materials
point out the role of the accused. Hence the trial Court has
properly considered the case and no grounds are made out to
acquit the accused.
9. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and also the
counsel for the respondent, having considered both oral and
documentary evidence on record and on re-appreciation, the
following points arise for the consideration of this Court:
(i) Whether the trial Court committed error in
convicting the accused for the offences
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
punishable u/S 498-A and 302 of IPC and
whether it requires interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
10. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel
for the respondent, we have given our anxious consideration to
the evidence available on record.
11. No doubt, PW1 is a hearsay witness and he came to know
about the incident through PW2 and lodged complaint in terms of
Ex.P.1. In the complaint specific averments are made that
accused subjected the deceased for mental and physical cruelty,
demanding money to consume alcohol, four months prior to this
incident deceased came to her parental house and stayed there
but the accused, his father, maternal uncle Boraiah, Nagaraj and
also residents of Ankamanal village, i.e. Hanumaiah, Bandri
Chandrappa and others conducted panchayath and advised the
accused and thereby the deceased was sent back to the house of
the accused. That on 05.12.2019 the accused asked the
deceased to give money, when she refused to give money, the
accused tried to snatch money from her and at time the accused
took machete, inflicted injuries and committed her murder. PW2
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
immediately called her neighbourers who were drinking tea at
the tea stall and all of them rushed to the spot and found the
accused already inflicted injuries, he was holding chopper in his
hand. Hence PW1 lodged complaint on the say of P.W.2. In
order to prove the contents of Ex.P.1, the prosecution mainly
relies upon the evidence of PWs.2 to 5. PW2 is none other than
the daughter of the deceased and the accused. PW2 in her chief
evidence categorically deposed before the Court as to how the
incident had taken place. She has identified M.O.1. No doubt
she is aged about 8 years, the Court has to take note of as to
whether she is tutored and her evidence is reliable or not. In the
cross examination except eliciting that now presently she is
staying along with her grandparents and maternal uncle nothing
is elicited. PW2 has denied the suggestion that she is tutored to
give evidence before the Court. It is further elicited that at the
time of galata herself and her sister were playing but when the
suggestion was made that she did not witness the incident and
the accused did not inflict injuries to the deceased, she
categorically denied. She has also denied the suggestion that
she is deposing at the instance of her maternal uncle. However,
she admits that machetes like M.O.1 could be available in all the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
houses of the agriculturists. In the cross-examination of this
witness, the defence did not make any suggestion that the
accused did not inflict any injury on the deceased and there is no
denial at all. When the Trial Court also put a suggestion that how
was the relationship between her father and mother, she replied
that they were good in terms but were frequently quarreling with
each other. In the cross-examination of PW2/eyewitness, nothing
is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW2 and her evidence is
consistent with regard to the incident is concerned. Except the
suggestion that she was tutored by maternal uncle, nothing is
elicited and no doubt M.O.1 machete will be available in the
houses of agriculturalists, but the same cannot be a ground to
come to a conclusion that the machete is fixed. The evidence
available before the Court is very clear that machete was also
stained with blood and the same was seized at the spot and sent
to the FSL. The FSL report is also positive in terms of Ex.P.10
including the clothes of the accused and deceased and that the
blood was 'B' group human blood.
12. The other evidence available before the Court is of PWs 3
to 5. The evidence of these witnesses is very clear and PW5 has
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
categorically deposed that the accused was always quarreling
with his wife, insisting her to give money and used to assault
her. In this regard, they made a Panchayath and deceased went
back to her parents' house. Later, even though the accused had
agreed that he will look after her very well but he failed. He
deposed that on the date of the incident of committing the
murder, PW2 rushed to these witnesses and informed them
about the accused inflicting injury on her mother and
immediately, they rushed to the spot and found the accused
there, who was holding a machete in his hand and the deceased
was lying on the ground with injury on her neck, forehead and
on her hand. She was no more and these witnesses informed the
same to the police. Later, the police came and took the accused.
13. PW3 to 5 have identified M.O.1-Machete. Except eliciting
the answer from PW3 to PW5 that when they went to the spot,
already there was injury on the body of the deceased and they
did not witness the inflicting of injury by the accused. A
suggestion was made that all other witnesses were not present
at the spot, but the same was denied. A suggestion was also
made that all of them are deposing falsely but the said
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
suggestion was denied. The evidence of PW3 to PW5 is very clear
that when they rushed to the spot, on the information of PW2,
the accused already had inflicted injuries and he was also found
with a machete in his hand and nothing elicited that they were
having animosity to depose against the accused.
14. PW.6 is the witnesses to the seizure Mahazar/Ex.P2 under
which M.O.1 to 3 were seized by the police. In the cross
examination, a suggestion was made to PW6 that the material
objects were not seized in his presence but the same was denied
by him. There was no fruitful cross examination in the evidence
of PW6 by the defence.
15. The PW7 is the Mahazar witness to Ex.P.9. This witness
was treated as hostile. During the cross-examination, a
suggestion was made that the accused produced the clothes,
which he had hidden beneath the temporary shelter and this
witness has also identified M.O.8 and M.O.9 and signature on the
Mahazar. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and
he admits that he is not well-versed with Kannada and not knows
the contents of Ex.P.9 and that the police also did not explain the
same. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile and in the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he
categorically admits his signature in Ex.P.9/Mahazar with regard
to the seizure of cloth of the accused.
16. PW9 is the brother of the deceased and he supports the
case of the prosecution. In the cross examination of this witness,
except suggestion that he did not witness the incident and on the
date of the incident he was at Haigala Mallapura, nothing helpful
is elicited by the defence. He stated that he came to know about
the incident through PW2. A suggestion was made to this witness
that PW2 did not inform him, but the same was denied.
17. The other witness is PW11/doctor, who conducted the
post-mortem. He categorically stated that he conducted the
post-mortem from 10.10 a.m., to 11.20 a.m., and found eight
injuries on the dead body of the deceased and almost all injuries
were cut injuries. He has given the final opinion that the cause of
death is due to hemorrhage as a result of injuries in terms of
Ex.P.12. He gave his opinion and also further opinion having
examined the weapon, which was used i.e., M.O.1 and opined
that M.O.1 could cause injuries found on the dead body of the
deceased. In the cross-examination, he deposed that injuries on
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
the dead body are ante-mortem in nature and even elicited that
the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.12 are sharp in nature but he was
unable to say that whether the said injuries are caused by single
weapon or different weapons. It was suggested to this witness
that he had given the post-mortem report to the Investigating
Officer and he has not mentioned the weapon used in post-
mortem report but this witness volunteers that the weapon was
not produced before him for examination at the time of
conducting post-mortem, but subsequently it was sent and he
examined the same. Even it was suggested to this witness that
he had examined the weapon on 14.02.2020 and gave opinion
that M.O.1 can cause the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.12. Except
eliciting that there was a delay in giving opinion, there is no
dispute regarding the opinion given by him.
18. The other witnesses are Engineer, PDO and the police
witnesses. PW19 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the
investigation. In the cross-examination, except a suggestion that
he did not record the voluntary statement of the accused and not
given the voluntary statement, no other answer is elicited from
the mouth of PW19 to disbelieve the case of prosecution.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
19. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence
available on record, particularly, in a case of murder and also the
nature of the crime is concerned, with regard to the homicidal is
concerned, the evidence of PW11 is very clear that he conducted
the post-mortem and also given opinion in terms of Ex.P.13 that
the weapon, which was seized, could cause such injuries and the
cause of death is also very clear that on account of hemorrhage,
as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased, the death of
the deceased had taken place. The oral evidence of PW11 and
also the documentary evidence at Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13 is very
clear that the deceased had sustained eight injuries mentioned in
post-mortem report/Ex.P.12 and the death was taken place in
the house of the accused that too using the chopper and nothing
is elicited even in the cross examination of PW11. A suggestion
was made that he gave his opinion in the month of February.
When material is available on record, the Trial Court has rightly
taken note of both oral and documentary evidence and has
rightly come to the conclusion that it is a case of homicide.
20. On re-appreciation of evidence available before the Court,
when the eyewitness is none other than the daughter of both the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
accused as well as the victim, her evidence is very clear that
when she was playing, she heard a screaming sound and went to
her house and found inflicting of injury by her father on the
mother and having noticed the same, she went and called PW3
to PW5 and PW3 to PW5 also rushed to the spot and found the
injuries on the neck and other parts of the body of the deceased
and accused was holding chopper in his hand.
21. In the cross-examination of these witnesses/PW2 to PW5
also, nothing is elicited to disprove the case of the prosecution.
PW2 is an eyewitness to the incident and her evidence is very
clear. Even though she is aged about 8 years, nothing is elicited
to say that she was tutored. The child witness evidence also can
be relied upon if it is not tutored. It was suggested that she is
deposing before the Court at the instance of her maternal uncle,
however the said suggestion was categorically denied and when
such material is available before the Court and when there is a
evidence of PW3 to PW5 that they participated in Panchayath
just prior to four months of this incident when the deceased went
back to her parental house and compromise was made and they
advised the accused to take care of deceased, in spite of it, he
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
inflicted the injury with the weapon that too, the incident was
taken place in the house of the accused i.e., in matrimonial
home. The accused has not given any explanation under Section
106 of the Evidence Act and also in his statement recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., except total denial of incriminating
evidence.
22. The other evidence available before the Court also states
that the machete was recovered at the instance of the accused
and the same was seized and sent to the FSL. The FSL report in
terms of Ex.P.10 is also very clear and positive and all these
materials point out the very role of the accused in committing
the crime i.e. murder of his wife, that too in his house. There is
no explanation by the accused. All these witnesses categorically
deposed that the accused was addicted to bad vices and he used
to quarrel with his wife always and demanding money from her
and if she failed to give any money to him, he used to beat her.
When such all materials are available before the Court, the trial
Court has not committed any error in invoking Section 498-A as
well as Section 302 of IPC. The Trial Court having considered the
evidence of these witnesses including the evidence of PW19, who
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
conducted the investigation and his evidence is also very clear
and even with regard to the seizure of the cloth of the accused.
Though PW7 turned hostile to certain extent and was cross-
examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and answers are
elicited from the mouth of PW7 and no doubt defence also
elicited from the mouth of PW7 that he did not know the
contents of the document of Ex.P9, but the evidence of
PW19/I.O. is very clear that accused only led him and also the
other pancha witnesses to the spot and showed the cloth where
he kept beneath the temporary shelter, which were hidden by
him on that day.
23. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence,
the trial Court has rightly took note of oral and documentary
evidence that the accused only has committed the murder of his
wife and the same is witnessed by the direct evidence of PW8
and the circumstantial evidence of PW3 to PW5 discloses the
same that when they rushed to the spot, they found the accused
at the spot along with machete and they themselves informed
the police and the police came to the spot and apprehended him.
When such material is available before the Court, we do not find
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
any other ground to come to other conclusion that accused has
not committed any offence. The trial Court also having
considered the evidence available on record that the accused
was always quarreling with his wife and also has taken note of
the evidence of PW2, PW3 to PW5, who are the eyewitnesses
and circumstantial witnesses and that the accused having habit
of consuming alcohol, frequently was demanding money from the
deceased and when she refused to give money accused used to
assault her. All this was spoken by the witnesses particularly,
PW2 and her evidence is also extracted by the Trial Court in its
judgment at paragraph No. 19. The trial Court has also taken
note of the evidence of PW1, PW3 to PW5 and also the evidence
of PW2, who is an eyewitness to the incident and considering the
nature of injuries as well as the weapon, which was used and
considering the medical evidence, the Trial Court came to the
right conclusion that the accused only caused the injuries and
there was a severe hemorrhage as a result of sharp force
traumas sustained considering the evidence of PW11 and when
such material available before the Court, the direct evidence as
well as circumstantial evidence point out the role of the accused
in committing the crime, we do not find any ground to reverse
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
the finding of the trial Court and hence answer the point
accordingly.
24. The trial Court while invoking Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., has
only given liberty to the victims to approach the appropriate
authority seeking compensation under victim's compensation
scheme formed by the State, but failed to take note of the fact
that victim i.e., PW2 is none other than the daughter of the
deceased, who is aged about 8 years, and therefore, the
question of giving of liberty doesn't arise and the Trial Court has
committed an error in giving liberty to approach the appropriate
authority by the minor and hence we direct the District Legal
Services Authority to award appropriate compensation to PW2
and her another sister and one brother, who are also minors.
25. PW2 in her evidence categorically stated that she has
another minor sister and one minor brother.
26. Since it is submitted by the learned counsel that
Vijayanagar District is newly established district and has no
District Legal Services Authority, if the victims have already not
approached the District Legal Services Authority for invoking
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3695-DB
HC-KAR
Section 357-A, they can approach the concerned District Legal
Services Authority, Ballari or Vijayanagara and the same shall
award appropriate compensation to the minor children of
deceased and accused, under section 357-A, if already not
granted.
27. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The concerned District Legal Services Authority is
directed to award appropriate compensation to the
minor children of deceased and accused, under
section 357-A, if already not granted.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
BVV, YAN
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13
