Karnataka High Court
Nagaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB
CRL.A No. 131/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.131/2019
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJU
S/O. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE WORK
RESIDENT OF MYLIMANE VILLAGE
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK-01 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALLANDUR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-01 ...RESPONDENT
Digitally (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II, ALONG WITH
signed by K S SMT. SOUMYA R., HCGP)
RENUKAMBA
Location: THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
High Court of
Karnataka CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
25/29.10.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALUR IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.1/2018, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB
CRL.A No. 131/2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused in S.C. No.1/2018 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur, has preferred this appeal.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.
3. The appellant was tried in S.C. No.1/2018 on the charge that on 28.06.2017 at 7:30 a.m., when his father- Krishnappa declined to yield to his demand for pay money for alcoholism, appellant chased his father from the kitchen of the house up to the front yard of the house of PW6-Lakshmibai and in front of her house, he assaulted on the head of the victim multiple times with MO1/iron rod and committed his murder. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR
4. On conducting the trial relying on the evidence of the eyewitnesses PWs.2 to 4,6 and 10 and the evidence on record, Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused. Submissions of Sri Venkatesh P Dalwai, learned Counsel for appellant:
5. Though the case is based on eyewitnesses' evidence, the evidence of eyewitnesses and other material on record show that the appellant/accused was suffering from mental ill-health and the alleged act was committed when he was not in sound state of mind. Further, despite such evidence, the trial court did not examine whether the appellant/accused was in a position to take up the trial and the requirement of following Section 328 Cr.P.C. Therefore the entire trial and consequential impugned judgment and order are unsustainable. Alternatively, evidence and record shows that the appellant has committed the alleged offence when he was not able to take informed decision. Hence at the most, act committed may be covered under Section 304 of IPC. The appellant is in judicial custody since 2017. Therefore, reducing conviction from Section 302 to 304 IPC and restricting the period of sentence for the period of detention already undergone by the appellant, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR he be released. In support of his submission, he relies judgment in Chunni Bai Vs State of Chghattisgarh1 Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II along with Smt. Sowmya.R, learned HCGP:
6. Benefit of Section 84 of IPC is available only where the accused had an unsound mind at the time of commission of the offence or he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act. But the evidence on record shows that the accused was on treatment and he had no such mental unsoundness at the time of the commission of the offence. Further, the report of NIMHANS summoned by this Court shows that at the time of the incident, the accused had no such mental health conditions. Further his irritability or loss of temperament, if any, was due to his alcohol addiction. The mother of the appellant/accused himself is an eyewitness. She has categorically stated about the intention of the accused in committing the murder of his father. Thus, there is no merit in the contention that either at the time of commission of the offence or during the trial the appellant was of unsound mind and he was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC or Section 328 Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no 1 2025 INSC 577 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR merit in the case. Hence appeal liable to be dismissed. As reported by the NIMHANS authorities, required treatment is being provided to the accused in the prison. Therefore, no further orders are required in that direction also. The judgment in Chunni Bai's case is not applicable to the fact of the present case.
7. On hearing both side and on examination of the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is "whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable?".
ANALYSIS
8. Some of the undisputed facts of the case are as follows:
That accused and PW.1 are the sons of victim Krishnappa and PW.10/Meenakshi. PW.1 and the accused had three other siblings. PW.1 and the elder son of the deceased were residing separately in Maharastra and in Kalgudde Estate, Aanooru Taluk respectively pursuing their work. Their two sisters were married and they were living in their respective matrimonial homes. Accused and his parents were living together in their -6- NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR house at Mylimane village of Chikkamagaluru Taluk. Accused was addicted to alcohol.
9. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
That the accused used to pester his parents to part with their money for his alcoholism. On 28.06.2017 at about 07.30 a.m., he started quarreling with his parents demanding money. When PW.10/mother of the accused declined his request, he tried to assault her. Therefore, his father Krishnappa intervened and admonished him. Being enraged by that, the accused pulling the iron pipe/MO.1 tried to assault Krishnappa. Escaping from his clutches, Krishnappa jumping compound wall of their house, ran towards the house of PW.6. The accused chased him and accosted him in the front yard of the house of PW.6, assaulted on the head of Krishnappa multiple times and committed his murder.
10. On learning about the incident, PW.1/brother of the accused came to the house. On hearing about the incident, PW.11/PSI of Mallanduru Police Station visited the scene of offence and received the complaint/Ex.P1 from PW.1 at the scene of offence and on returning to the police station, handed over the same to PW.13. Based on that, PW.13 registered FIR -7- NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR as per Ex.P12 and handed over the further investigation to PW.14. PW.14 visited the scene of offence, conducted inquest on the dead body as per Ex.P3, recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized the incriminating materials at the scene of the offence. On 28.06.2018, on his instructions, his staff arrested and produced the accused before him with report Ex.P10. He interrogated the accused and arrested him. The accused produced his blood-stained pant and shirt/MO Nos.2 and 3 and weapon of offence/MO.1. PW.14 seized the same under mahazar Ex.P5. He got subjected the dead body to postmortem examination, collected the clothes of the deceased which were sent to him after postmortem examination. He collected the post mortem report and other material objects, sent the seized articles to FSL, received the report and on completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet.
11. The case of the prosecution was based on the following set of evidence:
(i) The evidence of eyewitnesses/PWs.2 to 4,6 and 10;
(ii) Motive circumstance;
(iii) Medical evidence;
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB
CRL.A No. 131/2019
HC-KAR
(iv) Recovery of MOs.1 to 3 at the instance of the
accused under Ex.P5 in the presence of panch/PW.5;
(v) FSL evidence; and
(vi) Evidence of official witnesses.
12. It is no doubt, true that, PW.1 was not the eyewitness. He comes to the scene of occurrence on learning about the incident and comes to know about the course of events through his mother/PW.10 and tendered complaint/Ex.P1 before PW.11.
13. PW.2 deposed that he was working in canteen near the house of the accused and he witnessed the accused assaulting the victim on the day of incident at 07.00 a.m. He also spoke about police conducting mahazar/Ex.P3 at the scene of offence and seizing the blood stained mud from the scene of offence. In his cross examination, he being the resident of the locality where the incident took place was not disputed. As against that, it was suggested that in the morning at 07.00 a.m. people will be coming to his canteen and he would be busy etc. It was only suggested to him that, to get the accused convicted he is imposing falsely. But what was the enmity for him against the accused, was not elicited. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR
14. PW.3 deposed that on the date of the incident at 07.30 a.m. he was proceeding near the house of the accused to fetch milk, he witnessed the accused assaulting his own father with rod and people assembled there and he too went and found Krishnappa dead.
15. PW.4/another resident of the village deposed that, on the day of incident between 07.00 and 07.30 a.m., when he had gone for work, he found victim jumping to front yard of the house of PW.6, lying there and accused crushing his head using MO.1 and that victim succumbed to the injuries. In the cross- examination of this witness, he clarified that the village of Joladalu and Mylimane are one and the same. In the cross- examination of this witness also nothing was elicited to demonstrate that there was any motive for him to falsely implicate the accused.
16. PW.6, Lakshmibai is the owner of the house in front of which the incident took place. She deposed that her house is situated by the side of the house of the victim and on the date of the incident at 08.30 a.m. she heard accused quarreling with his parents, saw through the window of her house and found the accused assaulting on the head of the victim with MO.1, the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR brain matter of the victim came out and he died. She came to know that the accused assaulted the victim as he did not yield to the demand of the accused for money for his alcoholism. In the cross examination of PW.6, the fact that the victim died in front of her house was not denied. It was only suggested that, because there was a mosquito net to the window of their house, she would not have witnessed the incident which she denied. As against that it was suggested to the said witness that, PW.10/mother of the accused instigates the villagers paying money to abuse him and all villagers have conspired to see that the accused is in jail to get rid of him due to his mental health condition, which she denied.
17. PW.10 as already noted, is none else, but the mother of the accused. Her evidence that herself, accused and her husband were living together, was not denied. She further deposed that the accused whenever he went for coolie work used to drink alcohol and used to fetch money from the people for his alcoholism. She deposed that the accused assaulted her husband with MO.1/iron pipe and committed his murder and she witnessed the same. In her cross examination though it was suggested to her that she has not witnessed the accused
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR assaulting the victim and she admitted the same, the evidence of PW.6 that the incident took place in front of her house was not denied. Her presence at the scene of offence was not disputed or she being at the scene of offence as soon as the victim had suffered injuries was not impeached. In the cross- examination of all the aforesaid witnesses, the fact that victim died due to homicidal injuries was not disputed.
18. PW.7 the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim and issued postmortem examination report/Ex.P6. The evidence of PW.7 and Ex.P6 show that the following external and internal injuries were found on the dead body:
i. Skull bone presents and skull bones are missing.
ii. Frontal, Parital both temporal bones are fractured.
iii. Half of occipital bone missing and fracture with irregular margin.
iv. Brain matter avoltion present and part of brain matter missing.
v. Extreme distiguration of the upper part of face and scalp present.
vi. Extreme avoltion injury with fracture of skull bones and involving Zygomatic region.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR vii. Orbital region, Frontal and vertex exposing the underline structure are muscles and bones are exposed.
viii. Both Eye balls missing.
ix. Brain matter avoltion present. x. The part of the brain matter involving frontal regions missing.
The other parts are intact.
19. PW.7 further deposed that if a person is assaulted with MO.1, the injuries deposed by him could be caused. In the cross examination of this witness, absolutely there was no dispute about the injuries found on the dead body. It was only suggested that if a person is assaulted with MO.1 in the way found in the postmortem report, MO.1 gets bloodstains. Though suggestion was made that such injuries could not have been caused by MO.1, which the witness denied, no other theory of deceased suffering such injuries was elicited by the accused in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses. As against that the major defence of the accused, in evidence of eyewitnesses as well as the other witnesses was that, he was suffering from mental unsoundness and due to such mental health condition, he used to get agitated and assault.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR
20. Before this court, it was contented that the accused at the time of the incident as well as during the course of trial was a person of unsound mind. Therefore, he is protected by Section 84 of IPC and he should have been tried by following procedure under Section 328 Cr.P.C. Before the trial court, the inability of the accused to take up the trial was not pleaded.
21. It is no doubt true that the accused got examined DW.1/Psychiatrist of District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru in support of his defence of his insanity at the time of the offence. Even in his evidence, it was not elicited that the accused was unable to take up the trial. DW.1 was examined before the Court on 27.09.2018. The incident took place on 28.06.2017. DW.1 deposed that the accused was taking treatment in District Hospital Chikkamagaluru about 3 years prior to his evidence. He was coming to their hospital for treatment regarding 'psychosis and alcohol dependence syndrome' and regarding that, he has issued Ex.D1/certificate. Even as per Ex.D.1 and the evidence of DW.1, the accused had the following symptoms:
i. Wandering tendency;
ii. Abnormal behaviour;
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB
CRL.A No. 131/2019
HC-KAR
iii. Dis-inhibited behaviour; and
iv. Sleeplessness.
22. DW.1 deposed that abnormal behaviour means sometimes being abusive, assaulting others without reasons, talking, laughing and crying to himself without valid reasons, not taking food or care of himself etc. But this witness in the chief examination itself deposed that accused was prescribed with anti-psychotic tablets. In the cross-examination, he himself admitted that while issuing Ex.D1, the accused had not furnished any records to him. Ex.D1 was issued based on the examination dated 20.07.2017 i.e. post the crime. DW.1 further deposed that he had no earlier records in support of Ex.D1/medical certificate. He deposed that when he examined the accused, he had not come without clothes or he did not show behavioural abnormality. He admitted that the insane person cannot conduct his daily affairs and he cannot say whether on 28.06.2017 accused was in lucid condition. DW.1 admitted in the cross examination that mentally ill person will be sometimes normal i.e., called as Lucid Interval and at that time they will be normal. He said he cannot say whether on 28.06.2017 the accused was in Lucid Interval or not. The
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR deposition of DW.1 shows that the Court had raised a question to him and he answered in the following way:
"COURT QUESTION Q.1: Accused sitting the Court is now sitting like a normal person and he has not exhibited any abnormal behavior during this examination. Ans: Yes he is sitting like a normal person. He is under treatment. If a person is under treatment his behavior will be like a normal person and they will have the capacity to judge what is right and what is wrong i.e., during Lucid Interval period."
23. The aforesaid statement of DW1 shows that accused was sitting in the Court as a normal person and when he was under treatment his behavior would be like a normal person and he gets the capacity to judge what is right and what is wrong i.e., during his Lucid Interval. In the context of such evidence, the suggestions made to DW.1 the cross-examination of PWs.1,6 and 10 become relevant. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it was elicited that they had got the accused treated in
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR Chikkamagaluru Hospital, Wenlock Hospital and the accused was under treatment. It was elicited that when the accused is drunk and he is not on treatment, his senses will not be under his control. It was not the case of the accused himself that at the time of the incident he was drunk nor any of the witnesses said so. Even in the cross examination of PW.5, it was suggested that whenever the accused was skipping his tablets, he used to get agitated and show anger against others.
24. PW.10/mother of the accused, who was living with him, in her cross-examination, deposed that the accused was on treatment since past 8 years and she used to take tablets and medicine every day. She further deposed that the accused was treated in Shivamogga Hospital, Wenlock Hospital and Father Muller Hospital in Mangaluru. Her evidence that he was taking his tablets and medicine was not controverted. Since the mental health of the accused was sought to be set up as a ground before this court, the report of NIMHANS authorities was summoned. On examination of the accused, they have issued a detailed report dated 18.09.2025.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR
25. Relevant medical findings regarding the mental health condition and cause for such mental health condition, if any, are as follows:
Substance (Alcohal and Tobacco) use history - Mr. Nagaraja reports that he had been consuming alcohol since last 12-15 years however abstinent since imprisonment. Reports that he would consume about 3-6 units daily in the evening after work. However, reports that he did not consume on the day of the alleged offense and last used 1 day prior to offense. Reports craving. Denies withdrawal, loss of control, tolerance.
Mother reports that she is unaware of his pattern of use, however he would occasionally consume country liquor and on some occasions would cause hassles at home under intoxication.
Smoking bidis since age of 15 years. 1 packet of bidis per day. Dependance pattern.
26. In page 5, about alleged disorder or ability to take decision, the finding is as follows:
1. Process: Based on a neutral speech sample, there was no disorder of form or stream.
2. Possession: No thought possession reported.
3. Content: No abnormality noted.
27. Regarding his ability to stand trial, in page 6 of the report, the finding is as follows:
He was able to converse, understand prompts, and could plan and perform complex actions.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR A "Fitness to Stand Trial" questions was administered, and it was determined that Mr. Nagaraja had normal cognitive functions, understood the charges and court proceedings, and understood the need for appropriate behavior in Court.
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Regarding the mental ability of the accused, while committing the crime, the findings in page 7 of the report are as follows:
Forensic Psychiatry Opinion: On the day of the alleged offence, Mr.Nagaraja exhibited clear, goal- directed and purposeful behavior. He reported experiencing disappointment after being refused money by his father which led to a state of anger. In response, he went inside his residence, retrieved a pipe like instrument, and proceeded to assault the father, stating that his intention was to get the money.
Immediately after the offence, he reports that he left from the house to towards the road to surrender where he was caught and arrested by the police. Indicating that, he was aware of the consequences of his behavior.
(Emphasis supplied)
29. The above report was summoned at the instance of learned Counsel for accused himself. That unequivocally shows that at the time of the commission of the offence, the accused had no mental illness, disabling him to take informed decision
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR nor he had any such disability during the course of the trial. Therefore, such contentions fail.
30. Then what remains is the question "whether the trial court was justified in accepting the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, 6 and 10/eyewitnesses?" As already noted, they being the residents of the locality when the incident took place and more particularly PW.10 being the mother of the accused and resident of the same house along with the accused and the victim was not impeached or disputed. Nothing was elicited in their cross-examination to show that they had any motive for falsely implication of the accused. If at all there is a false implication PW.10 who had lost her husband would lose her son also, therefore it cannot be said that her evidence is unacceptable.
31. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial Court was justified in accepting the evidence of PWs2 to 4, 6 and 10 regarding the incident. Their evidence was further corroborated by the evidence of PW.1/complainant, the medical evidence i.e. postmortem examination report and the evidence of doctor/PW.7.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR
32. When the case was based on the evidence of the eyewitnesses, circumstance of motive and recovery of the weapon lose their significance. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses shows that the accused was addicted to alcohol and he was pestering his parents to pay money for his alcoholism. When his parents declined to pay money, he took such extreme step.
33. Reading of para 57 of the judgment in Chunnibai's case, shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court on noticing some behavioural patterns of the accused therein and based on that arrived at conclusion that the accused therein was not in a fit mental condition at the time of the commission of the crime. Therefore, the benefit of Section 84 of IPC was given to her.
34. Even in the judgment in Rupesh Manger (Thapa)'s case referred to supra it was held that if the materials placed before the Court satisfies the test of prudent man, the accused has to discharge his burden of proving his defence under Section 84 of IPC and under Section 105 of Evidence Act.
35. In the present case, defence's Counsel himself in the cross-examination of PW.10 elicited that the accused was
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR on treatment and on the previous day itself he was administered with the required injection. The medical evidence further shows that whenever he was under treatment, he used to be normal. Only if treatment was disrupted, he was getting into abnormality. Therefore, the said judgments cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the present case.
36. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment in the order of conviction and sentence. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
37. Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage submitted that as per the report of NIMHANS authorities, presently the accused due to his present mental health condition is at elevated risk of harm to both himself and others if he discontinues his prescribed medication. Therefore, order may be passed under Section 103 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, directing the jail authorities to admit the appellant in turn in some mental health institution. Said Section refers Section 30 of Prisoners Act or Sections 330 and 335 of Cr.PC.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR
38. Section 30 of the Prisoners Act deals with the cases where the prisoner is sentenced to death. Therefore, Sections 330 and 335 of Cr.P.C relied on by learned Counsel for the appellant pertains to the person of unsound mind pending investigation or trial. They do not deal with a post conviction case. Similarly Section 335 of Cr.P.C. is with respect to a person when the person is acquitted on the ground that the act committed by him does not amount to crime due to his incapacity of mental health capacity. Hence that provision also cannot be invoked in this case. However, Sections 37 to 39 of the Prisoners Act 1894 and Chapter XXVII and XLIV of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021 take care of the treatment and management of the prisoners with mental health illness and other medical conditions. Therefore it is imperative on the part of the jail authorities to follow the same. Further the report of NIMHANS submitted shows that the appellant is being provided the required medical treatment and the same needs to be followed. Hence, the following order:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
The jail authorities are hereby directed to get the required treatment to the appellant in terms of Sections 37 to 39 of the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43344-DB CRL.A No. 131/2019 HC-KAR Prisoners Act 1894 and Chapter XXVII and XLIV of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021.
The Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri Venkatesh P Dalwai, learned Panel Advocate for High Court Legal Services Committee.
Communicate copy of this order to the concerned jail authorities.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK, PKN, KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13