Karnataka High Court
Kumar S/O Basappa Olekar vs State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB
CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100320 OF 2020
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. KUMAR S/O. BASAPPA OLEKAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHINNAMULUGUNDA,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. GUDDAPPA NADLER,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: CYCLEREPAIR WORK,
R/O. CHINNAMULUGUNDA,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.G. NANDOOR AND
SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by BY PSI OF HAUNSBHAVI POLICE STATION,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH COURT
REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. S.P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C. 1973 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED ORDER 09/10/2020
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
HAVERI, SITTING AT RANEBENNUR IN S.C.NO.76/2014, BY
ACQUITTING THE APPELLANTS FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER
SECTION (120)B, 397, 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB
CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This appeal by the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 in S.C.No.76/2014 on the file of the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur)1 is directed against the impugned judgment dated 09.10.2020 whereby the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 were convicted along with accused No.1-Satish for offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 and the learned Additional SPP for respondent-State and perused the material on record. 1 Hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' 2 Hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that on 24.08.2014, PW2 (CW1), the son of one Channabasappa Gokavi filed a complaint, which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.106/2014 against the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 and one Satish-accused No.1. The respondent- police authorities conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet against appellants herein as well as the aforesaid accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. According to the case of the prosecution, on 21.08.2014, the accused persons entered the house/godown of aforesaid Channabasappa Gokavi3 at about 9.00 p.m., and all of them assaulted him and took away ₹5,000/- and a mobile phone. It is alleged that on 22.08.2014, the complainant received a phone call from CW2 at around 8.30 p.m. that the father of the complainant had expired and went to the spot only to find the dead body of his father and on enquiry, he was told that his father might have fallen down during the night. Thereafter, on 24.08.2014, the grand-nephew of the deceased makes a phone call to the complainant, who comes back to the 3 Hereinafter referred to as 'deceased' -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR same spot and upon enquiry, the accused No.1 as well as accused No.2 and 3 are apprehended and the aforesaid FIR/complaint is registered against them.
5. Pursuant to the Trial Court framing of charges as against the appellants and the accused No.1-Satish, the prosecution examined the complainant/CW1 as PW2 and the grand-nephew of the deceased (CW2) as PW1 and other witnesses as PW3 to PW30. The prosecution marked Exs.P1 to 49 by way of documentary evidence and M.O.1 to 6 in support of their case. The appellants/accused did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellants as well as accused No.1. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 are before this Court by way of present appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State and perused the material on record.
7. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of appeal and referring to the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR material on record, the learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the impugned judgment in order to point out that despite the fact that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident in question involving the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 or any evidence as regards their role in the incident in question, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 based on the sole alleged confession statement by accused No.1. In this context, our attention is invited to the complaint in order to point out that even according to PW2 (complainant), he made allegations against the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 only based on the sole confession statement of accused No.1 and upon accused No.2 and 3 allegedly admitting their guilt in the presence of the villagers. It is also submitted that apart from the fact that there is no circumstantial evidence to incriminate the appellants for the alleged offences, the mobile phone of the deceased was not recovered from the custody or the possession of the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 and there was also no evidence to establish that they were last seen at the spot or near the deceased at the time of the incident. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR Court convicting the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 based on the sole/solitary confessional statement of accused No.1 is contrary to law and facts and as well as to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishnu Prasad Sinha and another v. State of Assam4 and Kalinga Alias Kushal v. State of Karnataka5.
8. Per contra, learned Additional SPP, would support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no merit in the appeal and that the Trial Court is fully justified in convicting the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and seeks dismissal of the appeal.
9. The points arise for our consideration in the present appeal are as under:
i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC?4
(2007) 11 SCC 467 5 (2024) 4 SCC 735 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR
ii) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal?
10. Since both points are interlinked, they are taken up together for consideration.
11. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that there is no eyewitness, who speaks about either the role or involvement of the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 in the alleged offences. In fact, it is relevant to state that even according to the complainant himself, who lodged the complaint after about two days after the alleged incident, it was the accused No.1, who stated as regards the involvement of accused No.2 and 3, as can be seen from the confession statement of accused No.1, which is extracted below:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸Àé-EZÁÒ ºÉýPÉ:
£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀwñÀ vÀAzÉ ¯ÉÃmï £ÁUÀ¥Àà PÀħ¸ÀzÀ, 19 ªÀµÀð, QèãÀgï PÉ®¸À, zÁåªÀĪÀé£À UÀÄr Nt §½, ¸Á॥ a£ÀߪÀÄļÀUÀÄAzÀ, ºÀA¸À¨sÁ« ºÉÆç½, »gÉÃPÉgÀÆgÀÄ vÁ॥ ºÁªÉÃj f¯Éè.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ²æêÀÄw «ÃgÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M§â¼ÀÄ vÀAVAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ 7 £Éà vÀgÀUÀw ªÀgÉUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÀªÀÄÆäj£À PÀ£ÀßqÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è N¢zÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ NzÀÄ ©mÉÖ. £À£ÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆäj£À PÀĪÀiÁgÀ vÀAzÉ §¸À¥Àà N¯ÉÃPÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà @ºÀ®è ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ UÀÄqÀØ¥Àà £ÀqÀßgÀ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«zÉ. EªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ 2-3 ¸ÀtÚ¥ÀÅlÖ PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÉÝ. EªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ¥Á£ï ¥ÀgÁUï ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀ°¹zÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ ªÀÄ£É ºÀwÛ ºÉAZÀÄ vÉUÉAiÀÄ®Ä §¼À¹PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F jÃw PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£À ªÀiÁr 2 ¨Áj PÉøÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ ºÀA¸À¨sÁ« ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß »r¢zÀÝgÀÄ.
£Á£ÀÄ DUÀ 18 ªÀµÀð zÁngÀzÀ PÁgÀt £À£Àß ªÉÄð£À J¯Áè PÉøÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄV¢ªÉ. £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ¸ÀºÀ ¸Àé®à ¢£ÀzÀ »AzÉ wÃjPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ.
£Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆägÀ£À°è mÁmÁ K¸ï UÁr ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ±ÀgÀt¥Àà ¨ÉuÉÚÃgÀ @ J°UÁgÀ EªÀgÀ §½ QèãÀgï PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ. ±ÀgÀt¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ SÁ° aî ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝ ZÀ£Àߧ¸À¥Àà UÉÆÃPÁ« CdÓ ¸ÀºÀ EzÀÄÝ CzÉà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ªÀÄAZÀ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ®UÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. CdÓ SÁ° aîUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ±ÀgÀt¥Àà£À UÁr ªÀÄÆ®PÀ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀ PÀqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ §AzÀÄ vÀgÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. EzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ aîUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÁr¬ÄAzÀ E½¸ÀĪÁUÀ ºÁPÀĪÁUÀ CdÓ £À£ÀUÉ RaðUÉAzÀÄ 100-150 gÀÆ. PÉÆqÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. mÁmÁ K¸ï qÉÊæªÀgï ªÀÄAdtÚ ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝ DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä Hj£À°è MAzÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄVUÉ EµÀÖ¥ÀlÖ «ZÁgÀPÉÌ «µÀAiÀÄ w½zÀ ±ÀgÀt¥Àà £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÁgÀzÀ »AzÉ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ ©r¹zÀÝgÀÄ.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ MAzÀÄ mÁmÁ K¸ï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ qÉÊæ«AUï PÀ°vÀÄ zÀÄrAiÀĨÉÃPÉAzÀÄ wêÀiÁð¤¹zÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÆêÀĪÁgÀ CAzÀgÉ 18.08.2014 jAzÀ UÉÆÃPÁ« CdÓ£À CAUÀr §½ PÉ®¸À E®èzÉà PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄwÛzÉÝ. CdÓ¤UÉ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ZÉ£ÁßV DUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ PÉ®ªÀjUÉ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀt ¸Á® PÀÆqÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. ªÁgÀPÉÆ̪ÉÄä ¨ÁåqÀVAiÀÄ°è vÀ£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. CzÉà jÃw UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ CAzÀgÉ 21.08.2014 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ CdÓ¤UÉ ºÀt PÉÆnÖzÀÝ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÉ. D ¢£À CdÓ£À §½ PÀrªÉÄ JAzÀgÀÆ 75,000/- ¢AzÀ 1 ®PÀëzÀ ªÀgÉUÉ zÀÄqÀÄØ EvÀÄÛ. CdÓ D ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ vÀ£Àß ZÉrØ ¨ÉÆPÀÌtzÀ°è ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁwæ MAzÉà ªÀÄ®UÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ.
F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆäj£À PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¤UÉ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® w½¹zÉ. D ¢£À ¸ÀAeÉ zÁåªÀĪÀé£À UÀÄr ºÀwÛgÀ £ÁlPÀ EvÀÄÛ C°è £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÉÃjzɪÀÅ. gÁwæ 8-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ UÉÆÃPÁ« CdÓ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ JzÀÄjUÉ EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ HlPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÉÆÃrzÉ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¤UÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉƼÉÌ ºÉÆÃV ¸ÉÃjPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É gÁwæ MAzÉÆwÛ£À°è ¤ÃªÀÅ §AzÁUÀ M¼ÀV¤AzÀ PÀzÀ vÉgÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý CdÓ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV C°èzÀÝ aîUÀ¼À £ÀqÀªÉ PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÉ. ¸Àé®à ºÉÆwÛ£À £ÀAvÀgÀ CdÓ §AzÀ ªÀÄAZÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ®VPÉÆArvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÉà PÁAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà£À ¸ÀgÁ¬Ä CAUÀr §½ d£À eÉÆÃgÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ PÉüÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. CdÓ ¸Àé®à ºÉÆwÛ£À¯Éèà ZÉ£ÁßV ¤zÉÝ ºÀwÛ UÉÆgÀPÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©¹vÀÄ. DUÀ ¸ÀtÚzÁV ªÀÄ¼É §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß §½ EzÀÝ ªÉƨÉʯï mÁZïð¤AzÀ ¨É¼ÀPÀÄ ºÁQ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV ªÀÄÄA¨ÁV®£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÉ DUÀ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ M¼ÀUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄ£É ºÉÆgÀ¨ÁUÀzÀ°è ¸Àé®à d£À £ÁlPÀ £ÉÆÃr ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR vÀ¯É¢A©£À PɼÀUÉ EnÖgÀ §ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV JwÛ £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ C°è CdÓ£À ªÉƨÉʯï EvÀÄÛ CzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÉ. ºÀt J°è EnÖgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄPÁrzɪÀÅ CµÀÖgÀ°è CdÓ¤UÉ JZÀÑjPÉ DVvÀÄ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà PÀĪÀiÁgÀ CdÓ£À 2 PÁ®ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ PÁ°¤AzÀ CdÓ£À PÀÄwÛUÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ°lÄÖ PÀÆUÀzÀAvÉ CzÀÄ«ÄzÀ CdÓ PÉƸÀgÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ £Á£ÀÄ CzÉà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è QlQ ¨ÁV®Ä ªÀiÁr¸À®Ä EnÖzÀÝ ªÀÄgÀzÀ vÀÄAqÀÄUÀ¼À°è MAzÀÄ 3 Cr GzÀÝzÀ ZËPÁPÁgÀzÀ j¦Ã¸ï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CdÓ£À vÀ¯ÉUÉ eÉÆÃgÁV ºÉÆqÀzÉ. CdÓ¤UÉ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ ºÀuÉAiÀÄ §½ ¨sÁj ¥ÉlÄÖ ©zÀÄÝ gÀPÀÛ §gÀ¯ÁgÀA©¹vÀÄ. CdÓ PÉƸÀgï-PÉƸÀgï JAzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀÄä£Á¬ÄvÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CdÓ£À ZÉrØ eÉç£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉ CzÀgÀ°è 5,000/- ºÀt EvÀÄÛ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ J¯Áè PÀqÉ ºÀÄqÀÄQzÀgÀÆ ºÉaÑ£À ºÀt ¹UÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¤UÉ vÀ¯Á 1,000/- ¤Ãr £Á£ÀÄ 3,000/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CdÓ£À ªÉƨÉʯï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ UÉÆvÁÛUÀzÀAvÉ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄ£É ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀªÀÅ.
ªÀiÁgÀ£Éà ¢£À ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ CdÓ ¸ÀwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛV Hj£À d£ÀgɯÁè D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀzÀ¯Éèà ¤AvÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝ. ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ §A¢gÀ°®è CdÓ£À ªÀÄUÀ §AzÀÄ ±ÀªÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉøÀÄ DUÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ CdÓ£À §½¬ÄAzÀ vÀA¢zÀÝ ªÉƨÉʯï C£ÀÄß D£ï ªÀiÁr §¼À¸À vÉÆqÀVzÉ. ºÀA¸À¨sÁ«UÉ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¨ÁAqÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁgÀ®Ä £ÉÆÃrzÉ. DzÀgÉ CAUÀrAiÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ Ej¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £ÀA§gï PÉÆlÄÖ PÀ½¹zÀ. £Á£ÀÄ D £ÀA§gïUÉ CdÓ£À £ÀA§gï¤AzÀ 2-3 ¨Áj PÀgÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ CªÀgÀÄ PÀgÉ ¹éÃPÀj¸À°®è. G½zÀAvÉ 3,000/-ºÀtzÀ°è UÀt¥Àw ºÀ§âzÀ Hj£À ¥ÀnÖUÉ 450/- gÀÆ PÉÆmÉÖ. ªÉƨÉʯï UÉ 300/- gÀÆ. PÀgÉ¤ì ºÁQ¹zÉ. ¸ÀAvÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄVUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR MAzÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ UÉÆA¨É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ªÁZï C£ÀÄß 300/- gÀÆ. PÉÆlÄÖ Rjâ¹zÉ. G½zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß wAzÀÄ PÀÄrzÀÄ RZÀÄð ªÀiÁrzÉ. FUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ £À£ÉÆßqÀ£É §AzÀgÉ £ÁªÀÅ UÉÆÃPÁ« CdÓ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀ eÁUÀ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CdÓ£À vÀ¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä §¼À¹zÀ ªÀÄgÀzÀ jÃ¥Àgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CdÓ£À §½ EzÀÝ ºÀt¢AzÀ Rjâ¹zÀ V¥sïÖ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀtÚ UÉÆA¨É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉƸÀ ¯ÉÃr¸ï ªÁZÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EnÖzÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
-£À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¹.¦.L. »gÉÃPÉgÀÆgÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ.
12. A perusal of the complaint will indicate that even according to the complainant himself, his father expired on 21.08.2014 and it was only on 24.08.2014, when he went to the spot of demise of his father, he found accused No.1, who in turn gave alleged confession statement confessing not only about his own guilt but also about the guilt of accused No.2 and 3, who were thereafter brought to the spot and in the first instance they denied their guilt. But later after being coerced and beaten by the villagers, they admitted their guilt. It is therefore clear that at the earliest point of time the complaint insofar as accused No.2 and 3 was based on mere sole/solitary extra-judicial confessional statement alleged to have been made by accused No.1 as well as the subsequent extra-judicial
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR statement and the admission by accused No.2 and 3 after being beaten by the villagers, who were present at the spot.
13. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 as well as accused No.1, the prosecution examined the grand-nephew of the deceased as PW1 (CW2), who is neither an eyewitness nor has stated anything as regards the guilt of the appellants/accused No.2 and 3. The original complainant/PW2 (CW1) is also not an eyewitness and does not speak anything as regards the alleged guilt or involvement or role of the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 in the alleged incident. Similarly, none of the other witnesses, examined as PW3 to PW30 state anything as regards them witnessing the incident involving accused No.2 and 3 or their role in the incident in question, as can be seen from the extractions of the depositions of all the witnesses, which is forthcoming in the impugned judgment. Suffice it to state the Trial Court does not record a finding that the testimonies of any of the witnesses indicate that the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 were either involved in the incident in question or had they any role or that they were guilty of the alleged offences.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR
14. It is also pertinent to note that apart from the fact that there are no eyewitnesses to incriminate the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 for the alleged offences, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 were last seen at the spot or with the deceased or with accused No.1 at the time of the incident and the Trial Court clearly fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty, without appreciating this aspect of the matter.
15. A perusal of the impugned judgment would also indicate that there is absolutely no circumstantial evidence available on record to incriminate the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 in the alleged offences. As stated earlier, even a reading of the testimonies of the various witnesses as extracted by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment will also indicate that neither any evidence is given as against the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 nor any finding recorded by the Trial Court so as to come to the conclusion that the appellants-accused No.2 and 3 were guilty of the alleged offences. In fact, all that the Trial Court has said is that as per the confessional statement of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR accused No.1, all the accused persons came to know that the deceased possessed huge cash and they wanted to rob him and accordingly finished him, as can be seen from the findings recorded by the Trial Court, which is as under:
"87. From the above material evidence, it is established that it is a clear case of murder for gain. Accused No.1 was well aware that deceased was always possessed with money, hence, he colluded with the other accused persons and conspired to murder Channabasappa. The accused No.1 had selected the shed in which Channabasappa was doing his business. It is not in dispute that Channabasappa was used to reside in the said shed and he was not residing with his family members. It is an admitted fact that, Channabasappa was residing alone and used to has had food in the house of the villagers.
88. As per the confession statement by accused No.1, he assaulted Channabasappa with wooden reaper, robbed cash of Rs.5,000/ and mobile phone. The Bank Manager has categorically deposed that, prior to the incident, Channabasappa had deposited cash of Rs.50,000/ in his S.B. Account. It appears that, the accused persons believed that Channabasappa had possessed huge cash and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR hence, planned to finish him.
89. The prosecution has proved the motive, preparation and conduct of the accused persons before and after the incident. The accused persons in furtherance of common intention, conspired to murder the aged man Channabasappa Gokavi, accordingly, they murdered the victim and committed the offence of robbery. Except the denial, the accused persons have not placed any defence to disprove the case of the prosecution. It may be true that, some of the witnesses are turned partially hostile. The hostility of some of the witnesses does not come in the way of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The chain of circumstances clearly demonstrate the motive of the accused persons. Moreover, I.O. has contended that, the accused persons were involved in other criminal activities prior to the incident. So, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answered all the points in the affirmative."
16. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Trial Court clearly indicate that it did not advert to any piece of oral or documentary evidence to arrive at the said conclusion. The Trial Court, in an omnibus manner, proceeded to convict all the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR three accused persons without there being any evidence regarding either the involvement or role of appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 or any proof of conspiracy between accused No.1 on one hand and accused Nos.2 and 3 on the other. The entire findings recorded in the aforesaid paragraphs are based on surmises and conjunctions, and without there being any legal or acceptable evidence in this regard. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Bishnu Prasad Sinha and Another Vs. State of Assam6, held as under:
43. The question has been considered in State of M.P. vs. Paltan Mallah7, stating (SCC pp. 17778, para
18):
"Under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the extra judicial confession made by a coaccused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In the absence of any substantive evidence against these accused persons, the extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the ninth accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extrajudicial confession."
44. In Sidhartha8 (supra), this Court held: (SCC pp. 55758, para 19) 6 (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 467 7 (2005) 3 SCC 169 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 674
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR "19. It is true that the confession made by a co accused shall not be the sole basis for a conviction. This Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P9. held that the confession of an accused person is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as defined in Section 3. It cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used in support of other evidence. The proper way is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands, even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept."
45. In Ram Parkash vs. The State of Punjab10, it was held : (SCR p. 1219) "That a voluntary and true confession made by an accused though it was subsequently retracted by him, can be taken into consideration against a coaccused by virtue of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, but as a matter 8 Sidharth v. State of Bihar, (2005) 12 SCC 545: (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 175 9 AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839 10 AIR 1959 SC 1 : 1959 SCR 1219 : 1959 Cri LJ 90
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR of prudence and practice the court should not act upon it to sustain a conviction of the coaccused without full and strong corroboration in material particulars both as to the crime and as to his connection with that crime. The amount of credibility to be attached to a retracted confession would depend upon the circumstances of each particular case." It was further opined : (SCR p. 1219) "On the evidence in the case the confession of P was voluntary and true and was strongly corroborated in material particulars both concerning the general story told in the confession concerning the crime and the appellant's connection with crime."
(See also Navjot Sandhu11 (supra) and Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab12.)
46. Both the appellants had accepted their presence at the place of occurrence. Appellant No.2 had accepted that there were injuries on his face. He also accepted that there were stains in his seized undergarment.
47. Ms. Makhija may be correct in saying that all the witnesses to the seizure are not truthful, but, apart from the investigating officer, seizure has been proved by P.W.4 and P.W.26. They were themselves suspects; 11 State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715 12 (2005) 12 SCC 438 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 579
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR they were brought to the police station. They must have been interrogated and if they were witnesses to the seizure, we do not find any reason as to why we should completely ignore the seizure of the said undergarments, particularly in regard to its relevance, visàvis, the statement of the manager of the bus that he had changed his dress within the probable time of commission of the offence.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Kalinga Alias Kushal Vs. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector, Hubli13, held as under:
28. It may be noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The principles concerning circumstantial evidence are fairly settled and are generally referred as the "Panchsheel"
principles. Essentially, circumstantial evidence comes into picture when there is absence of direct evidence. For proving a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must be established that the chain of circumstances is complete. It must also be established that the chain of circumstances is consistent with the only conclusion of guilt. The margin of error in a case based on circumstantial evidence is minimal. For, the chain of circumstantial evidence is essentially meant to enable the court in drawing an inference. The task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on the strength of 13 (2024) 4 SCC 735
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR an inference must be approached with abundant caution. As discussed above, the circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution are inconsistent and the inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances have not been explained by the prosecution. The doubtful existence of the extrajudicial confession, unnatural conduct of PW1, recovery of dead body in the presence of an unreliable witness PW2, contradictions regarding arrest, unnatural prior and subsequent conduct of PW1, incredible testimony of the witnesses in support of the last seen theory etc. are some of the inconsistencies which strike at the root of the prosecution case. To draw an inference of guilt on the basis of such evidence would result into nothing but failure of justice. The evidence on record completely fails the test laid down for the acceptability of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, in light of the consolidated discussion, all three issues are hereby answered in negative.
29. Before parting, we consider it our duty to refer to the catena of judgments relied upon by the respondent to contend that minor inconsistencies could not be construed as reasonable doubts for ordering acquittal. Reference has been made to Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab14, Mallikarjun15 and Hari Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh16.
14 (2003) 7 SCC 643 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1697 15 Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 8 SCC 359 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 563 16 (2021) 17 SCC 111
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR
30. No doubt, it is trite law that a reasonable doubt is essentially a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution and minor inconsistencies are not to be elevated to the status of a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which renders the possibility of guilt as highly doubtful. It is also noteworthy that the purpose of criminal trial is not only to ensure that an innocent person is not punished, but it is also to ensure that the guilty does not escape unpunished. A judge owes this duty to the society and effective performance of this duty plays a crucial role in securing the faith of the common public in rule of law. Every case, wherein a guilty person goes unpunished due to any lacuna on the part of the investigating agency, prosecution or otherwise, shakes the conscience of the society at large and diminishes the value of the rule of law. Having observed so, the observations in this regard may not advance the case of the respondent in the present appeal. It is so because the inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution are not minor inconsistencies. As already discussed above, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstances. The present case does not fall in the category of a lighthearted acquittal17, which is shunned upon in law.
18. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the finding of conviction recorded by the Trial Court, based on the sole/solitary confessional statement of 17 Glanville Williams, Proof of Guilt.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR accused No.1, is clearly erroneous, and especially having regard to the fact that the same does not stand corroborated by any other evidence adduced by the prosecution coupled with the fact that the said sole/solitary statement of accused No.1 was the basis for the FIR, being registered against the appellants, and without noticing the fact that even the alleged admission of guilt by appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 was after they were beaten by the villagers, who are at the spot.
19. The Trial Court also failed to consider and appreciate that, according to the prosecution's case, mobile phone of the deceased Channabasappa was found in the custody of accused No.1. The theory of conspiracy between accused No.1 and appellant Nos.2 and 3 has been accepted by the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that, apart from the fact that nothing whatsoever was recovered from the custody or possession of appellant Nos.2 and 3, even the alleged mobile phone, which is sought to be linked to the alleged homicidal death of Channabasappa, was not recovered from the custody or possession of appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3. This is yet another
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR circumstance that establishes the Trial Court conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the offences alleged against them is erroneous.
20. Under these circumstances, upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court clearly erred in convicting the appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 for the alleged offences, which have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as alleged by the prosecution.
21. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the post mortem report, autopsy report and other documents (Ex.P39, Ex.P40 and Ex.P41) established that the demise of Channabasappa was a homicidal death, and the Trial Court judgment deserves to be upheld is concerned, merely because the demise/death of deceased Channabasappa was a homicidal one, in the absence of any evidence to incriminate the appellants for the alleged offences, it cannot be said that the homicidal death of deceased Channabasappa will lead to sole conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the alleged offences.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR
22. In fact we make it clear that the present appeal and the findings recorded herein are restricted to accused Nos.2 ad 3 and we have not expressed any opinion in relation to the appeal in Criminal Appeal No.100250/2021 filed by accused No.1, which shall be dealt with and decided on merits in accordance with law.
23. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment and order dated 09.10.2020 passed in S.C.No.76/2014 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur) insofar as it relates to the conviction and sentence of accused No.2 and 3 is hereby set aside.
iii) The appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted of the alleged offences.
iv) It is made clear that the present appeal and this order is restricted to the appellants/accused
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10059-DB CRL.A No. 100320 of 2020 HC-KAR Nos.2 and 3 only and we have not expressed any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions in Criminal Appeal No.100250/2021 filed by accused No.1, which shall be decided in accordance with law.
v) The fine amount of Rs.12,000/- deposited by the appellants is directed to be refunded to the appellants immediately upon receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN Para Nos: 1 to 15 PMP Para Nos: 16 till end.
CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31