Karnataka High Court
Parashuram Ganapatrao Pise vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100668 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
PARASHURAM GANAPATRAO PISE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. CLERK IN BANK,
R/O. PLOT NO.31, S.K. NAGAR, TALIKOTI,
MUDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIJAY KRISHNAPPA NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CAMP P.S, BELAGAVI,
R/BY. ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
VINAYAKA - RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
BV
Digitally signed by
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 415 (2) OF
VINAYAKA B V BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
Date: 2026.04.24 AND SENTENCE DATED 13.10.2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
10:12:53 +0530
UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 PASSED IN
SESSIONS CASE NO. 260/2020 BY THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 17.04.2026, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT'
THIS DAY, JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-2-
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing the accused for imprisonment of life with fine of ₹50,000/- and in default liable to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years and prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.
2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that accused is the husband of deceased Smt.Kavitha; both of them were staying in a rented house in Flat No. 123 of Athawadkar Layout in Vijayanagara, Belagavi. On 13.02.2022 at about 01.00 p.m. to 04.30 p.m. the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased with respect to taking care of two kids. When the quarrel reached the peak, accused with an intention to take away the life of the wife, squeezed her neck with hands. As a result, she lost her life. Hence case has been registered and Police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The accused did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence prosecution examined PW1 to PW23; Exhibits P1 to P68 and -3- CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 MO1 to MO8 are marked. On closure of the evidence of Prosecution, the accused was also subjected to statement u/S 313 CrPC but he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. However, he has filed written statement but did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial judge, having considered the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt; that the death was homicidal and death was on account of throttling. The trial Court convicted the accused believing the case of prosecution and sentenced. Hence the present appeal is filed before this court.
3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of the daughter, who has been examined before the trial Court as PW12, and her evidence cannot be believed since she was 6½ years old at the time of the incident. He admits that there is a clear admission on the part of the daughter that she is staying along with her grandparents and she used to give evidence in their terms. He also submits that -4- CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 the material available on record is insufficient to come to a conclusion that it is a case of 302 IPC. The accused in his statement u/S 313 CrPC that his wife has called him as a result of she having severe stomach ache. Hence, the accused with the permission of the employer went to the house. The counsel also admits that the material does not disclose the ingredients of the offence of 302 IPC and it fails to prove the case of murder. The counsel would further submit that there were no any earlier complaints against the accused subjecting her for any harassment or cruelty. He would submit that at the most it attracts the offence either u/S 323 or 304-II IPC.
4. The counsel also submitted that Court has to take note of nature of injuries, no weapon was used and there was no any intention to take away the life. The incident is nothing but a case of sudden fight. The deceased had not sustained any fracture according to the evidence of the medical expert. When such being the case, the trial Court fails to take note of the fact that case comes within the purview of Section 300 exception. The counsel in support of his argument relies upon -5- CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 the judgment of the Apex Court dated 21.09.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 11140-111141/2019 (Kala Singh alias Gurnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the discussion made by the Apex Court in paragraph number 9 wherein an observation is made that "it is clear from the evidence and other material placed on record that there was no intention to kill the deceased. It is clear from the evidence on record that scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and a sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. It was not a pre-meditated one and as there was no intention on the part of the appellant and co-accused either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC. In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant, we are of the view that it is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under Section 304 Part II IPC by maintaining the conviction for the offence of Section 201 of IPC".
-6-
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025
5. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph number 10 of the judgment referred supra wherein the judgment in Uday Singh V. State of U.P. reported in (2017) 11 SC 807 paragraph No. 6 was referred to say that "it was only in a fight, hand to fist, that both Gainda Singh and the appellant had held at the neck of the deceased, Shishupal Singh with such force as to ultimately result in strangulation and his death. It is very difficult to conceive as to how much pressure was applied either by Gainda Singh or the appellant on the deceased's neck so as to cause death". The counsel also brought to notice of this court that further discussion was made that "the action is because of the sudden unarmed fight nor can we conclude that the appellant had an intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death". The counsel would submit that the Apex Court modified the conviction for 304 Part II as against 302 IPC.
6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that the accused while leaving the office given the false information that he had received a call from his -7- CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 wife. The reason assigned that she was suffering from stomach ache whereas there was no such symptoms of stomach ache when the same is put to the medical evidence, i.e. Doctor, that she was suffering from stomach pain. The Doctor also not stated anything about the mother was having stomach pain. The daughter's evidence is very clear that accused only squeezed neck of the deceased by pressing the same and the same is done with an intention to take away her life. The counsel also submits that the accused has left the office with an intention to take away her life. Hence it cannot be contended that there was no any intention. The counsel also submits that the evidence of PW12, i.e. daughter of deceased and accused, is very clear that the accused took away the life of the deceased. Mother of the deceased is examined as PW6. The complainant was not examined since he is no more.
7. The counsel would submit that in the statement u/S 313 CrPC, the statement made by the accused is contrary to the material available on record. The counsel also would submit that the evidence of PW13, PW6's mother and also other -8- CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 brothers who have been examined is very clear. The counsel would submit that the court has to take note of the force and the manner in which the injuries were caused to the victim and it was an assault made on the victim; the fact that accused also sustained injuries and for further medical examination he did not subject himself for the same and refused to subject himself for further medical examination. The court has to take note of the conduct of the accused and the evidence of PW18 is very clear that the accused also had sustained injuries.
8. The counsel also would submit that in support of his statement u/S 313 CrPC, furnished before the trial Court in writing not examined himself or examined any of the neighbours and also not led any defence evidence and even not suggested to the Doctor about deceased was having a stomach pain before her death; and though such a defence was taken during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The counsel would submit that the Doctor's evidence, i.e. PW16, is very clear that it is a clear case of homicide, i.e. by way of strangulation. If really -9- CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 accused was not having any intention to take away the life, what made him to strangulate the deceased is not stated. Even he pretended before the neighbours that she was suffering from illness. The medical evidence is not disputed that is not a case of strangulation. Hence the prosecution evidence is rightly considered by the trial Court and it does not call for any interference.
9. In reply to this argument, the counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the evidence of the child witness cannot be believable; and only on suspicion the case is registered against the accused; PM report is also unsuspicious, there is no positive evidence before the Court that it is a case of homicide. Hence he has prayed this Court to acquit the accused.
10. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondent State and also considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
- 10 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 (1) Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentencing the accused for life imprisonment?
(2) Whether the appellant has made out any ground that there was no any intention and the material available on record suggests to invoke Section 304 Part II IPC and not for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court?
11. Points No. 1 and 2: Having considered the grounds which have been urged as well as the grounds made out during the course of arguments by the counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the State, this Court has to take note of the accusation made in the charge sheet against the accused.
12. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 13.02.2022, in between 01.00 to 04.30, the accused quarreled with his wife Kavitha in connection with taking care of the daughter; the accused with an intention to take away the life, pressed her neck and committed murder by strangulating her.
- 11 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025
13. The prosecution in order to prove the case of strangulation mainly relies upon the evidence of the Doctor, who has been examined before the trial Court as PW16. The evidence of PW16 is that on receipt of request from SHO, he had conducted the P.M. on 14.02.2020 with the history of throttling. On examination, he found external injurious (i) contusion of size 3cm x ½ cm present 11cm below the right angle of mandible with multiple small contusions surrounding it (ii) contusion of size 2cm x 1/2 cms seen on left side of neck 10 cm below the left angle of mandible. It is also his evidence that there is no evidence of fracture of thyroid bone or thyroid cartilage. The cause of death might be due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation. He issued the P.M. report in terms of Exhibit P36.
14. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and suggestions were made that no contusions are appearing over the dead body of the deceased at Ex. P21 and the same was denied. It is admitted that in case of throttling, the skin and lips would be bluish if cyanosis is observed. It is suggested that in Ex.P.36, he has not mentioned about the bluish
- 12 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 discoloration of skin and lips and the same is admitted. He admits that in the case on hand there is no tongue protruding. He further admits that in case of throttling, there would be 100% contusion of strapped muscles. It is suggested that he has not mentioned the contusions. But witness volunteers that he has mentioned contusion over all the muscles of neck. Neck muscles means strap muscles only. When the question was put that in the case of throttling there would be crescentic abrasions over neck, witness says that it may present or may not. It is suggested that in a case of manual strangulation, there would be nail marks and again witness says that it may be or may not be. He further admits that there would be finger marks in case of manual strangulation. But witness volunteers that it is finger marks and contusions. He also admits that in Ex.P.36 there is no mention of finger marks but witness volunteers that he has mentioned the contusions. He also admits that in the case on hand there is no fracture of thyroid cartilage and the thyroid bone. It is also admitted that in case of manual strangulation there is every possibility of damage to cricold cartilage. He admits that there is trachea rings in neck portion and in the PM report also he has stated
- 13 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 that trachea rings were intact. When the question was put that in Ex.P.21 no contusions are appearing over the dead body, but witness volunteers that a big contusion is appearing, but not multiple contusions.
15. Having considered the evidence available on record, the Doctor's evidence is very clear that it is a case of manual strangulation, he also noticed two injuries and cause of death is also opined as a result of manual strangulation there was asphyxia and given the P.M. report as per Exhibit P36. In the cross-examination, except eliciting that in the case on hand, there was no tongue protruding and there would be resented abrasions over neck. His evidence is very clear that it 'may be' or 'may not be' and witness volunteers that he has mentioned that there were contusions so also there is no fracture of thyroid cartilage. The case of prosecution is also nothing but pressing the neck and it is a case of throttling. Having taken note of evidence available on record, it is depending upon the force which was used while committing the murder and though trachea and head bone was not fractured.
- 14 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025
16. It is not the case of the defence that it is not a case of manual strangulation and only suggestion was made that though there were no findings to constitute the opinion of manual strangulation and he gave false opinion, the same has been clearly denied. When such material is available before the court and also it is the defence of the accused that she was suffering from severe stomach pain but during the cross- examination of the Doctor nowhere it is suggested that she was having a stomach pain and even not suggested to the witness that on account of severe stomach pain she lost her life. Hence the defence cannot be accepted and it is a clear case of homicide. The trial Court has not committed any error in coming to such a conclusion.
17. The case of the prosecution with regard to proving of the case of murder mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs.1 to
20. PW1 is a witness to the mahazar Ex.P.1 so also Exs.P2, P3 and P4 and also Ex.P.7, seizure of clothes of the deceased. This witness was treated hostile and witness says that he had signed the mahazar Ex.P.8 at the police station. In the cross examination, the learned Public Prosecutor got elicited the
- 15 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 answer that he has agreed to become a pancha, notice was also given to him and the said document is marked as Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10. He also admits that mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P.1. He also admits during the course of cross- examination with regard to the seizure of the cloth and once again admits the notice Ex.P.11 and also Ex.P.12, consent letter. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, when the suggestion was made that he used to sign the panchanama regularly and he did not inform the police not to bring him frequently for panchanama, the same was denied.
18. The other witness, PW2 is also Pancha for panchanama, Ex.P.19, who is an inquest witness. He says that he found a black mark on the neck and also identifies the photographs Ex.P.20. In the cross-examination, he admits that he has not given any instructions to the Police to draw the mahazar and also cannot say who gave the instructions. Suggestion was made that mahazar was drawn in the police station and the same was denied.
19. The other panch witness is PW3, who is also a witness to Ex.P.19 and photograph Ex.P.20. He also denies the
- 16 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 suggestion that he was not present at the time of drawing mahazar in terms of Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20. But he supported the case of prosecution and nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence.
20. The other panch witness is PW4 who is the panch witness to Ex.P.1. He identifies his signature in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. He also identifies MO1 to MO4 and Ex.P.4 and photographs Ex.P5 and P.6. He is also a witness to the document Ex.P.7 and also MO5 to MO8 were marked through him. In the cross-examination, he admits that cloth of the deceased was produced by a police official by name Dugge. But he does not know his designation. There were no stains over the said cloth including blood stains.
21. The other witness is PW5. This witness deposes that second floor was built up in the year 2021. He is the owner of the premises where he is residing in the ground floor and accused is also a tenant of him. His evidence is very clear that the accused was working in Syndicate Bank, the accused was residing along with the deceased. His further evidence is that in the evening when the RCC work of the second floor was
- 17 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 going on at around 06.30 p.m. the accused was moving here and there with tension, he told that his wife was not waking up. Hence he went inside the house and found Smt. Kavitha sleeping on the bed and he tried to talk to her and make her to wake up, but she did not. Hence he advised the accused to take her to the hospital. He did not know the cause of death. He also did not enquire the details. Hence his evidence is very clear that accused only informed that she was not keeping well. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination except eliciting the answer that if any quarrel takes place in the first floor, they can hear the sound in the ground floor and he never heard any such sound of quarrel from the house of the accused but the fact is that the work of second floor was going as at around 6.30 p.m. Hence his evidence is very clear that accused only informed the owner that deceased is not waking up, he made an attempt to wake up her, but she did not.
22. The other witness is PW6, who is the mother of the deceased and so also PWs.7, 8 and 9, the brothers of the deceased. All of them have given similar evidence that on 13.02.2022 around 07.00 p.m. the accused called PW6 over
- 18 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 phone and intimated that his wife took some tablets and he gave the phone to her younger son and after conversation with the accused, he told that her mother took some tablets and thereafter her limbs were become cold and the daughter informed that both of them were quarreling with regard to the child's concern and her father squeezed the neck of her mother. These witnesses were not the eyewitnesses to the incident but only on the information of the daughter and also on the phone message they came to know that Kavitha is no more.
23. PW10 and PW11 are hostile witnesses. The evidence remains is that of PW12 and PW13. PW12 is the daughter, who is aged about 11 years at the time of examining her but at the time of the incident she was 6½ years old. Her evidence is very clear that when her mother was in the house, accused came; and on that day she did not go to the school and she was in the house and her sister Akruthi was also with her. There was a quarrel between the mother and father in respect of looking after her sister Akruthi and her father assaulted mother over the neck with hands and she doesn't know what
- 19 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 happened thereafter. But in the cross-examination, it is stated that when she was questioned in the Court, she could not understand anything and she came to Court around 05.00 to 06.00 a.m. and by that time her grandmother Deepali came along with her and so also her maternal uncle. When the suggestion was made that he tutored her to give such evidence but the same was denied, however admitted that when she was in Belagavi she was a small kid and at that time she could not understand; she did not meet her father after the death of the mother and she is staying in her paternal grandparents. Since she is residing with her maternal grandparents, she hears their words and follows them. When the suggestion was made that she was a small kid, she doesn't remember the quarrel between her parents and the same was denied. With regard to the quarrel between the father and mother is concerned, nothing is elicited from the mouth of this witness and her evidence is consistent.
24. The other witness is PW13, who is the Assistant Manager of Syndicate Bank. She says that she knows the accused. He was working as a Clerk in the bank. Her evidence is that
- 20 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 accused attended the duty at 10 a.m. and around 12.40 p.m. he sought permission to go to home as his wife was not feeling well and permission was given, however he did not return to the duty on that day and hence the evidence of this witness corroborate the evidence of PW12 and she has issued Ex.P.29 and also Ex.P.30. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that accused had received a call that his wife is suffering from severe stomach pain and accordingly requested permission to go to home and the same is admitted. The accused left the bank at 12.45 p.m. Hence it is very clear that accused left the bank at 12.45 to go to the house and he was very much present in the house as deposed by PW12- daughter.
25. Now the other witnesses PW14, is the Engineer who has prepared the sketch. PW15 is the Police Constable. He captured the photo at the time of conducting the panchanama and evidence of these witnesses is not material.
26. PW16 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem. This court has already discussed the evidence of PW16 with regard to the homicidal death. PW17 is the retired P.S.I. who has
- 21 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 received the complaint in terms of Ex.P.22 and registered the case and FIR as per Ex.P.37. When the suggestion was made that F.I.R. was registered by the P.S.I. convenient to the case and the said was denied.
27. The other witness PW18 is the Doctor who examined the accused on 15.02.2022 at around 12.25 p.m. The latter also identifies Ex.P.38. In his evidence he says that there were three injuries, i.e. linear abrasion of size 2 cms. Red in color on upper part of left front side of neck, contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm bluish in color on mid 1/3 third just beside center line and front left side of neck and also other contusion of 1 cm x 0.5 cm bluish in color on 1/3rd of left front side of neck. All these injuries are on the neck only. He recorded the same as per Ex.P.39. He identified the signature and issued the wound certificate in terms of Ex.P.40. He opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Opinion was sought as to whether the injuries over the neck of the accused may be caused due to scratch, in injury number 1, mentioned in Ex.P.39 and P.40 may be caused due to scratch. In the cross examination, it is elicited that linear abrasion is also called as
- 22 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 scratch. Nails are not pointed object. Linear abrasion may be caused by nails as well. Further when the question was put to him that shape of nails normally are not with pointed and the same is admitted. Witness volunteers that it depends upon the shape of the nails at the relevant point of time, if the normal nail shape, linear abrasion could not be caused.
28. The evidence of the Doctor-PW18 is clear with regard to the fact that accused had sustained three injuries, that too particularly on the neck and injuries could be caused on account of the scratch. PW19 and PW20 are the I.Os who conducted the investigation by drawing the mahazar and seizure of articles; and collected opinion from the Doctor including P.M. report and Wound Certificate.
29. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available and record, this Court already comes to the conclusion that it is a case of homicide. No doubt, the accused has given statement u/S 313 CrPC before the Court in written form wherein he says that deceased was suffering from severe stomach pain and hence he rushed to the house. So also the evidence of the Assistant Manager of the Bank is
- 23 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 also clear that accused left the office at 12.45 p.m. It is also important to note that evidence of the daughter-PW12 who says that there was a quarrel between the father and mother. Her evidence is that her father squeezed the neck of the deceased. The opinion of the Doctor is also clear that it is a case of strangulation. If really the victim was suffering from severe stomach pain the same would have been suggested to the Doctor but no such suggestions were made and in the statement u/S 313 CrPC it is nothing but an improvement. Further, the evidence of PW18 Doctor is very clear that accused also had sustained three injuries particularly on the neck. Hence it is clear that while causing strangulation the deceased scratched the neck of the accused and no explanation is offered on the part of the accused as to how he had sustained three injuries particularly to his neck. Hence it is a clear that an attempt was made by the deceased at the time of strangulating her for survival. The evidence of the Doctor-PW18 is also very clear regarding he had sustained injuries and no explanation was given by the accused with regard to the injuries sustained by him, except stating that deceased was suffering from stomach pain. The Doctor's
- 24 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 evidence and material evidence is also very clear and there is no doubt as contented by the counsel appearing for the appellant that there were no any complaints earlier to that. But the fact of the very presence of the accused is not disputed and he was also at the time of the incident very much present. There is no explanation offered by him. The incident was also taken place in his house and under Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act he has not given any explanation. It is not his case that someone entered the house and committed the murder.
30. On the evidence available on record, it is very clear that the accused came to the house; the owner of the premises also says that accused was moving with tension and on enquiry only he revealed that deceased was not waking up and they also made an attempt to wake up her, but she did not and then advised to take her to the hospital, but even did not take her to the hospital. When all such material clearly discloses that it is a case of strangulation and point out the accused even though the evidence of PW12 since 11 years old, but nothing is elicited though she says that she is staying
- 25 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 along with her grandparents, but with regard to the tutoring, nothing is elicited.
31. The other contention of the counsel appearing for the accused is that at the most it comes to offence u/S 323 or 304 Part II. No doubt that no weapon was used and there was no any fracture of thyroid bone or trachea but the fact is that the evidence of the daughter is very clear that the accused pressed the neck of the deceased. It depends upon the force used. If more force is used there would be a chance of fracture of hyoid bone or trachea. If it is not found, the same cannot be a ground to bring down the case within the purview of exception. But the strangulation was made and need not necessarily that using of weapon is necessary. But the material available on record and medical evidence is very clear that it is a case of strangulation and with an intention to take away the life only he strangulated her. So also there was a scuffle between the accused and the deceased and in the said process the accused also had sustained the injuries, particularly on his neck. Hence the material available on record is very clear that it is not a case of invoking offence u/S
- 26 -
CRL.A.NO.100668 OF 2025 304 Part II as contented by the counsel. The principles laid down in the judgment referred supra will not come to the aid of the appellant having considered the factual aspects of the case. There is no any explanation on the part of the accused sustaining injuries and also with regard to the strangulation. Hence this case cannot be brought into the exception and the contention of the counsel cannot be accepted that at the most the Court can invoke Section 304 part II.
32. In view of the discussions made above, both the points framed for consideration are answered in the negative and we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant-accused is dismissed.
The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE bvv/CT-PA