Karnataka High Court
Basavraj Kallappa Annigeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB
CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH 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. 100612 OF 2023 (C)
BETWEEN:
BASAVRAJ KALLAPPA ANNIGERI
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. BENNUR VILLAGE,
ANNIGERI, TQ. ANNIGERI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.J. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR
NAVALGUND CIRCLE, ANNIGERI POLICE STATION,
R/BY ADDL. SPP.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
Digitally signed
...RESPONDENT
by YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR (BY SRI. M.B. GUDNAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
BENCH
Date: 2026.03.10 SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE COURT BELOW AND ALLOW
10:16:24 +0530
THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2023
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE
DHARWAD IN SC NO. 56/2022 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 323, 324, 307, 302, 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB
CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondent/State.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2023 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad (for short, 'the Trial Court') in S.C.No.56/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 302, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and prays this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction for the above offences.
3. The factual matters of case of prosecution is that on 01.05.2021 at 09.00 p.m., the accused picked up quarrel with his father i.e., PW.1 and deceased mother with respect to transfer of property in his name and assaulted them with intention to commit murder saying that if they are murdered he will get the land in his name. Saying so he started assaulting with stick to PW.1 and when the same was noticed by the deceased, she tried to interfere. Then the accused was saying that if first she is murdered, then everything will be okay and -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR with an intention to commit murder, assaulted the deceased to her face, head and all over the body with sticks. Due to the assault, she died thereby the accused has committed the murder.
4. It is also the case of the prosecution that he has attempted to commit murder of PW.1 with stick and he has caused the injuries to both PW.1 and deceased by assaulting with hands and stick and also abused in a filthy language and threatened PW.1 with life. Hence complaint was filed and case was registered in Crime No.63/2022 for the above offences.
5. The Investigation Officer who registered the case, investigated the matter by recording the statement of witnesses and collected all materials from the concerned and filed the charge sheet. On filing of charge sheet, the trial Judge took cognizance, secured presence of the accused and framed the charges. The accused also did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence available PW.1 to PW.13 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P42 and got marked M.O.1 to M.O.7. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was subjected to 313 -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR statement wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances but not led any defence evidence. However, accused has given the written statement separately.
6. The trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, particularly considering the evidence of PW.1, PW.5, PW.6, PW.8 and PW9 who have partly supported the case of prosecution with respect to the motive and the quarrel by the accused with PW.1 and so also considering both oral and documentary evidence of the Doctor as well as the FSL report comes to the conclusion that it is a case of homicidal death. The trial Court also relied on the evidence of PW.1, who is the injured witness, is consistent and reliable. Though PW.5 and PW.6 partly turned hostile but admission was taken from the mouth of PW.5 that accused only inflicted the injury with the club and particularly the evidence of PW.9 who also witnessed the incident at 09.00 p.m. and considered the other material before the Court. The accused though has not given any explanation in statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. but filed written statement under Section 313(5), he has only stated that sometimes the complainant used to take intoxicated drinks and used to quarrel -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR with the deceased and the mother was suffering from paralysis and cause of death is not within the knowledge of the accused and he has been falsely implicated in the case. But with regard to the incriminating evidence is concerned, nothing is stated in the statement filed under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that oral and documentary evidence available on record is sufficient to point out the role of the accused and convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the present appeal is filed by the accused.
7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused and not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel also submits that the evidence given by the witnesses is in contradiction with each other. PW.1 complainant himself is father of the accused. His evidence and also the witnesses PW.5, PW.6, PW.8 and PW.9 have turned hostile partly and when such being the case, the trial judge ought not to have considered the evidence of PW.1. The trial Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the eye witness, -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR prosecution witness deposed that he has not seen any offences committed by the accused. Hence, it requires interference of this Court since the judgment of the trial Court is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be accepted, there is no nexus between the appellant and the alleged crime so also there are procedural irregularities committed by the investigation officer while conducting the investigation and not conducted the investigation properly. The complainant himself is not supporting the case of prosecution. The trial Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that appellant himself committed the offence. The counsel also would contend that trial Judge failed to notice that there is no motive, intention for commission of the said offence and viewed from any angle the impugned order of conviction is not sustainable in the eye of law. The counsel also would submit that the witnesses-PW.3 and PW.4 with regard to the recovery of the weapon, have turned hostile and Court cannot believe the evidence of the prosecution and hence, it requires acquittal.
8. The counsel also vehemently contended that there is no any corroborative piece of evidence, since eyewitnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR very seizure is doubtful. There was no any panchanama with regard to the seizure is concerned and also no specific evidence before the Court that club would cause the injuries which were found in the dead body of the deceased. So also, the medical evidence also not corroborates with each other.
9. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent/ State would submit that PW.1, who is the father of the accused and husband of the deceased, had sustained the injuries. Immediately when he was taken to the hospital, he has given the history that assailant is none other than the son and the Doctor- PW.10 categorically deposes before the Court that though not mentioned the name of the son in the wound certificate but he categorically deposes that in the MLC extract it is mentioned that he was assaulted by his son.
10. The counsel also vehemently contend that PW.5, who is also a witness to the incident on the very same day, which was taken place at 04.00 to 04.30 p.m., and so also other witnesses, PW.6, though turned hostile, the evidence is very clear with regard to the incident on that day i.e., at 04.00 p.m. Learned counsel also would submit that PW.9 who is the witness to the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR third incident that was taken place at 09.00 p.m. and he categorically deposes with regard to the nature of the accused and causing frequent quarrel with the parents in connection with the property. The counsel also would submit that there was a recovery of weapon by drawing the mahazar in terms of Ex.P12. Though PW.3 and PW.4 have turned hostile and Court has to look into the evidence of the investigating officer and if the evidence of investigating officer is consistent and reliable, Court can rely the same. Hence, he relies upon the evidence of PW.12 with regard to the recovery of weapons.
11. Further, the counsel also vehemently contend that the trial Court taking into note of evidence available on record, particularly when the seizure was made. FSL report as per Ex.P42 also supports the case of prosecution that clothes of the deceased and accused also stained with blood i.e., Article No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 i.e., human blood with 'B' group. Hence, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused and it does not require any interference.
12. Having heard the appellant counsel and the counsel appearing for the State and also considering both oral and -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR documentary evidence in keeping the grounds which have been urged in the appeal and also the oral submissions of the respective counsel, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court?
13. Having heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and this Court has to take note of both oral and documentary evidence available on record whether it is a case of homicidal or not.
14. Prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW.11, who conducted the post mortem from 11.00 a.m. to 12 noon on 02.05.2022. The Doctor's evidence is very clear with regard to the external injuries are concerned that:
i. Blackening of right lower leg due to contusion.
ii. Contusion of right ankle joint.
iii. Diseases deformity left side hemiplegia.
iv. Fractures frontal bone on right side.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR
15. The Doctor also opined cause of death by assault causing intra cranial bleeding causing hypovolamic shock. The time since death is 12 to 16 hours. The postmortem report is also marked as Ex.P18 and the Doctor's signature is marked as Ex.P18A. It is also the evidence of the Doctor that M.O.3 and M.O.4 were also sent to him for opinion, he examined the same and given the opinion that M.O.3 and M.O.4 could cause the injuries. He deposed that when material objects were sent to him for opinion, both stick were stained with blood and also the same was sent to the FSL report. In terms of the FSL report, blood group is 'B' positive in respect of M.O.3 and M.O.4. He gave the opinion in terms of Ex.P20. In the cross-examination of this witness, no doubt it is elicited that if a patient suffering from paralysis falls on the ground, after losing the balance, such injuries can be caused. The Doctor also says that he do not know whether she was suffering from any disease. But the evidence clearly discloses that she was suffering from paralysis. A suggestion was made that if a person comes into contact with hard object by force and by fall, such injuries can be caused.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR
16. Having taken note of the evidence of PW.12 and also the nature of injuries found in Ex.P18- post mortem report, it is very clear that laceration on left side arm, lateral aspect measuring 1.4 cms. x 6 cms. and blackening of the skin on shoulders and upper 1/3rd of left upper arm due to hematoma and also found aberrations and blackening i.e., contusion on left scapula region measuring 5 x 4 and protrusion of right eye and also the left eye pupil dilated contusion and maxillary area and blackening of contused upper leg and lower leg and posterior aspect. Having taken note of these types of injuries, even if any person falls from any height and such injuries could not be caused. But the cause of death is also that due to head injury, since there is a frontal bone fracture and the same is caused by assault causing intracranial bleeding and nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.11 except eliciting the answer that if any person falls from the height on the ground could be caused, but no such injuries could be caused and the same is taken note of by the trial Court.
17. Considering the multiple injuries found all over the body from head to the lower portion of the deceased, the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR photographs of which have been marked before the trial Court also disclose the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased. In Ex.P3, in total, five photographs where injuries are found even on the head as well as face and also lower leg, bleeding injuries are also found in the fifth photograph on the left leg. When all these materials are taken note of, the trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that it is a case of homicide. Hence, we do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in coming to such conclusion, accepting the evidence of PW.11 and also the postmortem report-Ex.18.
18. Now coming to the aspect of the committing the murder by the accused. This is a case of direct evidence as well as circumstantial witnesses' evidence and motive for committing the murder. But in a case of direct evidence, motive is insignificant. But court has to examine the evidence available on record. Admittedly PW1 is Husband of the deceased and father of the accused. The evidence of PW1 is very clear that even though property was given to the accused he used to come and make galata and also demanding money, even on the intervention of the seniors of the village he has given 2.5 acre land, a house and
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR a tractor to the accused. In spite of it, he was not happy with the same. The accused went to the house of his wife and he was doing agricultural work and even two children were admitted to studies at Tumkur Siddaganga Mutt, he was staying along with his wife. In spite of it he was addicted to bad vices and consuming the alcohol and repeatedly coming and making galata. He was involved in gambling and he used to make galata frequently with his wife and also with him. Whenever he comes to his house he used to do the same.
19. PW1 also narrated in his evidence in paragraph number 2 that on 01.05.2022 incident was taken place thrice at 04.00, 07.00 and 09.00 p.m. and this incident was also witnessed by PW5, PW6, PW9, they came and pacified the galata. He inflicted the injury with club and when he tried to assault him, his wife intervened and the accused inflicted the injury with the same club on her saying that first he would take away the life of her and then he will teach a lesson to him. As a result she has sustained injuries. Then the accused came to assault PW1 saying that when she was inflicted with injury, he pretended that she was passed away and when he made an
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR attempt to assault PW1, PW1 ran towards the canal and in the early morning at 05.00 he came back. At that time accused was not in the house. He went with his motorcycle. PW1 noticed that she was no more. Hence he made all the people to gather there and all of them advised him to give a complaint. Therefore he went to Police Station and gave the complaint at 07.00 a.m. in terms of Exhibit P1. The witness also speaks about other procedure what the I.O. has done subsequent to the registration of the case by drawing the mahazar in terms of Exhibit P2, Exhibit P4 and also the seizure of Material Objects, he also identifies MO3 and MO4, the photographs and post-mortem of the dead body. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that prior to her death, she had sustained injury to her hand. As a result, she was having ailment. He also admits that two months prior to this incident she was taken to the hospital 2 to 3 times. But when suggestion was made that she was very cordial, the witness says that always he used to quarrel with them. He also admits that two years back even properties were given as per the Panchayath in terms of Watni. In spite of the same is given, he was making galata.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR
20. On the date of incident the accused came at 04.00 p.m. and on the previous day also he came and quarreled with him. But accused alone came and he started quarrel at 04.00 p.m. and again he quarreled at 07.00 p.m. and he was very much present in the house and first the accused assaulted on him with stick on his leg and also the face. It was at around 06.45 p.m. and the same was witnessed by CW11 and CW12. He reiterated in the cross examination also that CW11 and CW12 were also present. At the time of third incident at 09.00 p.m. PW9 was also very much present and he witnessed the same. But he did not come forward to pacify the galata since earlier also he was threatened. It is also elicited that when he found the inflicting of injury at 10 o'clock and both accused and himself confirmed that she was no more but did not take the injured to the hospital since both of them have confirmed that she is no more and hence she was not taken to the hospital. At the time of the incident they screamed and the same was witnessed by Basavaraj Channabasappa-CW12 but he was not examined. Further answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 that accused infected the injury at around 10 o'clock that is the last blow given to the wife.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR
21. The other witness on whom the prosecution relies upon is PW5 with regard to the incident on the particular date. PW5 in his evidence says that accused used to visit the house of PW1. The accused was staying along with his wife and children at Nalapady Village, i.e. the village of his wife. The accused and PW1 were cordial earlier. That on 01.05.2022 at about 04.00 p.m. he was proceeding to his land and while proceeding in front of the house of PW1 he heard the galata sound and quarreling each other, i.e. PW1 and accused, in respect of the property. PW5 also advised the accused. At that time CW11 was also present and he also advised the accused. Thereafter he left to his house but was there along with CW11 till 06.30 to 07.00 p.m. On the next day he comes to know about the death of the deceased. This witness was treated as hostile partly. But in the further cross-examination made by the Public Prosecutor, it is elicited that accused inflicted injury with the stick. The same was pacified that is in respect of the second incident that is at 07.00 p.m. and accused also in the cross examination of defence, a suggestion was made that PW1 was having the habit of consuming of alcohol and the same was denied that he is not aware of the same. PW1 and his wife permanently residing in
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR their house and when he first visited the house of PW1, he advised the accused and he kept quiet. It took around half an hour. It is suggested that no such incident was taken place and the same is denied. Even though this witness has turned hostile partly, but his evidence is very clear with regard to the incident at 04.00 and also at 07.00 and inflicting of injury with stick.
22. The other witness is PW6. He also reiterates the evidence of PW5. He also says that when he was going to Hebsur at 04.30 to 05.00 p.m. he heard the galata sound when he was proceeding in front of the house of PW1. When he went and found there was a quarrel between the accused and PW1, he advised the accused. And at that time even CW12 was also present and he also advised the accused. But they do not know for what reason both are quarrelling. This witness was also treated as hostile and suggestion was made that he was quarrelling on account of the dispute in respect of the property and the same was denied. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination by the Public Prosecutor. But with regard to the evidence of PW6 having witnessed the incident at 04.30 to 05.00 p.m. even not made any cross examination by the defence
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR except suggesting that he has not given any statement before the Police and no cross examination at all was made in respect of the incident between 04.30 to 05.00 p.m. and advise the accused when he was quarreling with PW1 and the same is not controverted.
23. The other witness is PW9, who is also an eye witness to the incident. In his evidence he reiterates the evidence of PW1, PW5, PW6 that accused always quarreling with the parents and he used to keep quiet whenever PW1 used to give money to him. Whenever quarrel takes place he used to advise along with CW13. Accused was also quarreling with his mother and also says that 2.5 acres land was given to him by PW1 and he used to make galata in spite of the same and also causing abuse. On 01.05.2022, he witnessed the galata sound at around 04.00 p.m. in the house of the PW1. He was there till 07.00 p.m. and he came back and at around 09.00 p.m. when quarrel was continued he went to the house of PW1 and advised. Immediately the accused taken the stick and started assaulting PW1. When the deceased tried to pacify the galata, the accused only committed the murder of the deceased and also assaulted
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR PW1. PW9 admitted in the cross-examination that PW1 ran away from the spot when he was again tried to assault him. A suggestion was made that when accused went to assault him, saying that he will not leave him and when he found the stick but he did not try to pacify the galata as accused was having stick. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the defence. This witness says that at the time of evening incident there were 10 to 15 persons witnessed the same. If any galata takes place in the house of PW1, the same could be heard, 4 to 5 persons have pacified the galata and stopped the galata and advised the accused. In spite of it the accused did not hear the same and they were there till 04.00 to 06.00. He also volunteers that whenever they tried to pacify him, the accused used to quarrel with them also. Suggestion was made that he did not go to the house of PW1 and not pacified the galata, the same was denied.
24. Having considered the evidence of PW1, PW5, PW6 and PW9 with regard to the incident is concerned, evidence of PW1 is consistent that when the galata was taken place at 04.00, 07.00 and 09.00, witnesses PW5 and PW6 were present and they pacified the same. Even in the cross examination of PW6, the
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR defence did not disputes the same with regard to the incident at 04.00 p.m. and they were there till 07.00 p.m. PW5 also categorically deposes though turned hostile with regard to the inflicting of injury but in the cross examination he categorically says that he witnessed the incident assaulting with the club. So also the evidence of PW9 is with regard to the third incident that is at 09.00 p.m. He went and pacified and also he witnessed the incident. But no doubt there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of PW1. In the cross examination he says that he got confirmed that his wife is no more and the accused also got confirmed the same. But in the chief evidence he says that when he comes to house in the early morning at 05.00 a.m. she was no more. But there are minor discrepancies with regard to the same and the same will not take out away the case of prosecution and the same will not go to the very root of the case of prosecution. But the fact is very clear that PW1, PW5, PW6 and PW9 have witnessed the incident of quarrel of assault. When such material available before the Court and also the direct evidence available before the Court with regard to the incident on that day and the same is witnessed by these witnesses and also when the incident was taken place in the
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR house of PW1, i.e. the house of the parents of the accused, when PW1 categorically says that he ran away from the spot when the accused tried to assault him after assaulting the deceased, no explanation on the part of the accused is offered in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the written statement he did not state anything about the incident with regard to the incriminating evidence. Only he says that PW1 was quarreling with the accused consuming the alcohol and even he gone to the extent of saying that cause of death is not within his knowledge and he has been falsely implicated in the case and no explanation on the part of the accused with regard to incriminating evidence.
25. Apart from that the prosecution also relies upon the evidence of seizure of cloth of the accused as well as the weapon. No doubt, in a case of direct evidence the recovery is not significant term but it is only corroboration. However the seizure of cloth also clearly discloses that there are blood stains on the bed sheet, wooden club, two in number, shirt and pant of the accused. The same was seized and sent to the FSL. Exhibit P42, report of the FSL is also very clear that all these articles are
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR stained with blood, i.e. human blood of 'B' group. Apart from that, Doctor's evidence is also very clear that when the weapons are sent to the Doctor to give opinion whether these weapons could cause the injuries, he categorically deposes before the Court that those two weapons were also having blood stains and having taken note of all these materials by the trial Court. Even when the recovery witnesses PW3 and PW4 are turned hostile, Court has to take note of evidence of the I.O. also. I.O. categorically deposes before the Court and if the evidence of the I.O. is consistent, Court can look into the material.
26. No doubt, the witness PW1 is husband of the deceased and also the father of the accused, Court has to take note of the conduct of this witness also. Even the related witnesses and interested witnesses also, Court has to take note of testimony of a witness in a criminal trial. It cannot be discarded merely because the witness is a relative or family member of the victim of the offence. In such a case, Court has to adopt careful approach in analyzing the evidence of such witnesses and if the testimony of the related witnesses is otherwise found credible, accused can be convicted on the basis
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR of testimony of such related witnesses. But in the case on hand, it has to be noted that PW1 is none other than the husband of the deceased and also the father of the accused. There was no enmity except the accused was quarrelling with them frequently. Only the reason for giving the evidence before the Court is that, in spite of the property was given to the accused, he was not happy with it, he used to quarrel regularly with the parents. When such being the case, even though PW1 is a related witness, Court can take note of the said facts into consideration.
27. Even with regard to the evidence of I.O. also nothing is elicited from the mouth of the I.O. who has been examined as PW12 with regard to the recovery is concerned. Though PW3 and PW4 have turned hostile and merely because both independent witnesses have turned hostile, the Court cannot discard the evidence of the Police witnesses. In the case on hand we have already taken note of the fact that PW1, PW5, PW6 and PW9 are the eyewitnesses. Even though PW5, PW6 not spoken anything about the overt act is concerned but both deposes with regard to the earlier incident prior to the third incident is concerned that both were very much present at 04.00 p.m. as well as till 06.30
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR p.m. Evidence of PW5 is also very clear that he witnessed the incident of assault by using the stick and when such all materials available before the court only on the discrepancies found in the evidence of PW5 and PW6 turning hostile to some extent cannot be discarded. When such all materials before the Court, we do not find any ground to come to a other conclusion that accused has not committed the murder when all the circumstances and also the direct evidence point out the role of the accused. No explanation is offered even by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence as well as no explanation under Section 106 of Evidence Act when he was there in the house when murder was committed. However, having re-appreciated the evidence available on record both oral and documentary though trial Court appreciated the evidence available on record that there was a threat to PW1, but on perusal of the evidence of PW1, he has not spoken anything about that with an intention to take away his life the accused assaulted him. Only when he noticed the injuries caused to the deceased, at that time, the accused came forward to assault him. At that time, he ran away. When such being the case, the trial Court lost sight of the evidence of PW1 that he has not
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR spoken that with an intention to take away the life, he inflicted the injury and hence committed an error in invoking Sec. 307 of the IPC.
28. No doubt PW9 in his evidence says that with an intention to take away the life, the accused assaulted PW1 but the very witness PW1 has not spoken about with an intention to take away the life the accused tried to inflict injury. When such evidence is not available, by considering the evidence of PW9 though he has spoken about with an intention to take away the life accused tried to assault him but it cannot be a ground to invoke Section 307 of IPC. However considering the nature of injury that he assaulted with club on the PW1 and also the wound certificate which is marked as Exhibit P7 is very clear that he had sustained simple injuries. When such being the case it is a case for invoking Section 324 IPC and not for the offences under Sections 323 and 307 IPC. Hence the matter requires reconsideration. Hence we hold that no such material for Sec. 307 IPC as well as for the offence under Section 323 IPC.
29. The other offences invoked in Section 504 of IPC and the evidence of other witnesses, that is PW1, though says that
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR abused in filthy language there is an improvement in the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the 504 is concerned, there must be a specific word uttered to invoke the offence of Section 504 and so also in respect of 506 is concerned there must be a intimidation to the life of the PW1 and when such material is missing and ingredients are missing, it is not a case for even for Section 504 and 506.
30. The trial judge while considering the material on record fails to take note of the awarding of compensation under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, the injured PW1 complainant lost his wife. Hence it is appropriate to direct the District Legal Services Authority to consider Section 357A for awarding compensation in favour of PW1.
31. Accordingly, we answer the point for consideration.
32. In view of the discussions made above, we passed the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part setting aside the conviction for the offence under Section 323, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3550-DB CRL.A No. 100612 of 2023 HC-KAR The Conviction for the offence in Section 324 and 302 is affirmed.
The District Legal Services Authority, Dharwad, is directed to consider Section 357A for awarding compensation in favour of PW1.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE RKM, BVV CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12