Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lalitha vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB
CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.100175 OF 2025 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100176 OF 2025
IN CRL.A NO.100175/2025
BETWEEN:
SOMAPPA CHANNAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ATTIKATTI TANDA,
TALUK: MUDARGI, DISTRICT: GADAG.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVA SHIRUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
signed by
VINAYAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
VINAYAKA B V
BV Date: THROUGH MULAGUND P.S.,
2026.04.27
10:09:56 TALUK: MUNDARGI,
+0530 DISTRICT: GADAG- 580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CR.P.C. (415 (2) OF BNSS), PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN S.C. NO.10/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, GADAG, AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
13.12.2024 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 17.12.2024 PASSED
BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, IN S.C.
NO.10/2021, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB
CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025
HC-KAR
FURTHER ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
IN CRL.A NO. 100176/2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. LALITHA W/O. LAXMAN LAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KABALAYATKATTI TANDA,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: GADAG.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THROUGH MULAGUND P.S.,
TALUK: MUNDARGI, DISTRICT: GADAG- 580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CR.P.C. (415 (2) OF BNSS), PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN S.C. NO.10/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, GADAG AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
13.12.2024 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 17.12.2024 PASSED
BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, IN S.C.
NO.10/2021, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC,
FURTHER ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 302 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB
CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent/State.
2. These two separate appeals are filed by accused No.1 and 2 challenging the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2024 and order on sentence dated 17.12.2024 passed in SC No.10/2021 on the file of learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and prayed this Court to set-aside and to acquit both the accused.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the native of Kabalayatkatti Tanda of Gadag taluk and he was residing along with his wife accused No.2 and his son PW7 in Goa by doing fish business and for the purpose of his business, he had purchased omni vehicle. The deceased appointed the accused No.1 as driver to drive his omni vehicle. Thereafter, accused No.1 got intimacy with accused No.2 i.e., wife of the deceased and then both of them were having immoral relationship and often the -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR deceased by consuming alcohol, making galata with accused No.2 by saying that she is having illicit relationship with accused No.1 and even the elders have advised the deceased, but the deceased did not listen and continued to make galata with accused No.1 and 2. Hence accused No.1 and 2 became angry and they thought that the deceased is coming in the way of continuing their illicit relationship. It is also the case of the prosecution that because of COVID-19, the deceased, accused No.2 and PW7 came to their native Kabalayatkatti Tanda and accused No.1 also came to Attikatti Tanda, which is 4 kilometres away from Kabalayatkatti Tanda. That on 30.09.2020, in the midnight, Accused No.1 and 2 colluding with each other in furtherance of the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased, accused No.2 called the accused No.1 to her house and at that time, the deceased was sleeping and then both accused No.1 and 2 have tightened the neck of the deceased with nylon rope by holding one end of the nylon rope by both of them and murdered the deceased.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. That on 01.10.2020 at 07.40 p.m., the first informant went to the Mulagund police station and filed the complaint in terms of Ex.P1 before PW19. The PW19 having received the complaint, issued FIR in terms of Ex.P21 and handed over further investigation to PW20. The PW20, who took the investigation from PW19, conducted the inquest mahazar in the presence of PW2 and PW3 and got the PM of the deceased and also conducted spot mahazar in terms of Ex.P4 and seized the MO4-plastic and glass bangle pieces and drawn Ex.P31-rough sketch and Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are photographs. Thereafter, PW20 returned to the police station and then PW11 and CW17 to 19 produced the accused No.1 and 2 arresting both of them and recorded voluntary statement of accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P32 and Ex.P33 and thereafter, secured the PW2 and PW3 and as per the say of the accused No.1, they went to the place where the deceased was murdered and place where the accused No.1 ran away and the place where MO5 was hidden and accordingly, they went in government vehicle to those places where Ex.P10-mahazar was conducted and seized MO5 and -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR taken the Ex.P15-CD of photographs and Ex.P24 is certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and obtained the electricity supply certificate in terms of Ex.P30 and also recorded the statement of witnesses before the Court i.e. PW7 as per Ex.P35 and he received Ex.P29 extract of the house and Ex.P25-PM report and Ex.P19 is the 164 statement of PW5, who had last seen the accused and also obtained the opinion in terms of Ex.P26 and Ex.P27 is the map of the spot and thereafter, on completion of the investigation, PW20 filed charge sheet against the accused. persons.
5. The trial Judge having considered the charge sheet material took the cognizance and secured the accused and accused No.1 was in custody and accused No.2 was released on bail and they did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW1 to PW20 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P38 and got marked MO1 to MO5. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused persons were subjected to 313 statement and both of them have denied the incriminating -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR evidence and no explanation was given under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence i.e., the evidence of PW5, who is the last seen witness and also the extrajudicial confession made on insisting the accused No.2 made before the PW1, PW6, PW9 and PW13 and also considering the medical evidence of strangulation by using the rope as per the evidence of the doctor-PW15 and also the defence, which was taken before trial Court as suicide and also there was an enmity between accused No.2 and PW1, PW6 and PW9 and evaluated the evidence and comes to the conclusion that there was a recovery at the instance of the accused i.e. rope in the presence of PW4 and PW8 and comes to the conclusion that chain of the murder that there was a motive to commit the murder, is illicit relationship and hence, convicted the accused persons and sentenced both of them. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by both the accused No.1 and 2.
6. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the trial Court committed an error -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR in coming to a wrong conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case and the very evidence available before the Court not corroborates with each other. The counsel would vehemently contend that no connecting evidence to bring home of the accused No.1 and 2. The counsel also submits that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW13 and also PW1 and the recovery of rope is also doubtful and according to PW1, it was recovered from the back yard of PW1 and the evidence of PW4 and PW8 with regard to the recovery is not consistent and not inspires the confidence of the Court. The counsel also would submit that PW7, who is the son of the deceased and accused No.2, has not supported the case of the persecution and Ex.P35 is the 164 statement of PW7 that he was not in the house as on the date of the incident. The counsel would submit that there is no any motive and in order to prove the motive, no material is placed before the Court and last seen witness evidence also not consistent and case of the prosecution is doubtful and only based on the suspicion, case was registered. The counsel also would submit that the incident was taken place -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR in the intervening night of 30.09.2020 and 01.10.2020 and complaint was lodged belatedly afterthought i.e. on 01.10.2020 at 7.40 p.m. and the trial Judge fails to take note of all these aspects while appreciating the evidence available on record.
7. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent/State would submit that PW15 is the doctor, who conducted the PM and his evidence is very clear that it is a case of homicidal that compressing the neck and cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and the same is not seriously disputed by the defence and only false defence was taken that it is a case of suicide. He also submits that even with regard to the suicide also no suggestions were made to the doctor-PW15. Hence, the trial Court rightly accepted the case of the prosecution that it is a case of homicidal. The Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contends that the evidence of PW5 clearly shows that he had last seen the accused No.1 leaving the house of accused No.2, and he had witnessed the same when the dogs were barking at night, nothing was
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR elicited during the cross-examination of PW5 to disbelieve his evidence. He also submits that though PW7 says that he was not at the station and he was in Goa, but the defence itself elicited from this witness that PW7 and accused No.2 had found the deceased, who had allegedly committed suicide and had removed the rope by cutting it. However, no evidence regarding the cutting or removal of the rope was placed before the police or recovered from the police and the same is a false defence taken by the defence side.
8. The Addl. SPP further submits that when the death was taken place in the house of the deceased and accused No. 2, that too in the intervening night and in the early morning at 06.00 a.m., the accused No.2 herself called and informed the neighbours pretending that her husband i.e., deceased was not waking up and she gave a false information stating that he was fully drunken in the previous night and now he is not getting up. Upon further questioning, she made the statement before the neighbours that he committed suicide. When they found the ligature mark on the neck, insisted her to reveal the reality to them, she made
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR an extra judicial confession before PW1, PW6, PW9, and PW13 as committed the murder along with accused No.1. Therefore, it is very clear that this was a murder committed by the accused No.2 as well as accused No.1. Further, he submits that no explanation is given under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as well as in 313 statement. The Addl. SPP also would submit that when the spot mahazar was conducted in terms of Ex.P9, bangle piece of the accused No.2 were also seized and the same was spoken by PW4, who is also the witness for the recovery of rope at the instance of the accused. Both PW4 and PW8 have supported the case of the prosecution and the same is not denied in their cross-examination that accused persons not led the panch witnesses and also the police and not produced the rope. He would further submit that with regard to the delay that the complaint was lodged in the previous evening but PW1 categorically stated in the complaint that he had first brought the matter to the notice of the elders of the village and then he went and lodged the complaint and therefore, there was a delay in lodging the complaint and the delay is
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR also explained. Hence, question of interfering with the findings of the trial Court does not arise.
9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and the Addl. S.P.P appearing for the respondent- State and having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
i. Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting both accused for the offence punishable u/S 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court? ii. What order?
10. Having heard the counsels appearing for the appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondent
-State and also considering the material available on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the incident occurred during the intervening night on 30.09.2020 and 01.10.2020, that too in the house of the accused No.2 and also the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the body was lying in the house of the accused No.2 and deceased and also not in dispute that the accused No.2 only brought to the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR notice of death of the deceased in the house that her husband is not waking up in the early morning. It is important to note that the neighbours have gathered near the house of the accused No.2 and also the deceased on the very next day after 06.00 a.m. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 made an extra judicial confession with PW1, PW6, PW9 and PW13 when they insisted about the cause of death, and then she allegedly revealed that herself and accused No.1 both of them committed the murder, this means both of them were having illicit relationship.
11. Having perused the material on record, firstly the Court has to look into the documentary evidence and oral evidence available on record, whether it is a case of homicidal or suicide. Consequently, this Court has to consider the evidence of the Doctor-PW15, who conducted the post-mortem. According to his testimony, the time of death was approximately 12 to 24 hours prior to the PM examination and cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia as a result of compression of the neck by a ligature
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR material consequent upon the strangulation and issued the PM report in terms of Ex.P25 and also found the ligature material, which is already marked as MO5, i.e. rope which was seized at the instance of the accused and also issued the opinion in terms of Ex.P26 on examining the MO5. The investigation officer sent the rope and obtained the report from the doctor in terms of Ex.P26. In the cross- examination, it was elicited that the nail beds turned blue in cases of hanging and asphyxia deaths. Except the ligature mark, there is no external wound were found on the dead body. It was suggested that in cases of strangulation, there may be possibility of internal injuries to ankle part and forearm and there may not be possibility of internal injuries. This witness admitted that there may be chances of congestion of the heart in case of hanging and strangulation. In case of asphyxia death, the eyes and mouth may be widely opened and the tongue may be in a bitten condition. It was suggested that ligature mark did not encircled on the middle of the neck of the deceased and the same was denied and further suggestion was made that in winter season the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR rigor mortis will occur after 24 hours and the same was also denied. The ligature mark varies in size if the deceased tried to fight and if did not fight, then it will be of the same ligature material. It was suggested that in case of strangulation, hyoid bone will be fractured and the same was denied but suggestion was made that in order to help the prosecution created a document Ex.P25 and Ex.P26 and the same are denied.
12. Having considered the evidence of PW15 and also the answers elicited from the mouth of PW15 in the cross examination and categorically denied that he gave the report in favour of the prosecution as per Ex.P25. Also the suggestion was made without examining the MO5, gave the opinion. Having considered the Ex.P25, the final opinion of the doctor is that he died due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck by ligature material caused by strangulation. It is also the case of the prosecution that rope was used i.e. MO5 committing the strangulation and also it is important to note that the very rope, which was seized at the instance of the accused was sent to the Expert and opinion
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR was also taken and doctor says that the rope is measuring 159 centimeters in length and 2.5 centimeters in circumference. No visible stains present over the rope. The case of the prosecution is also that when he was sleeping in the midnight, accused Nos.1 and 2 strangulated him and question of any struggling the same also does not arise when the incident was taken place in the midnight and hence, considering the evidence of PW15 and also the cause of death as mentioned in Ex.P25 and also the opinion in terms of Ex.P26, it is clear that rope was used committing the strangulation and there is no any explanation on the part of the accused No.1 and 2 during the course of statement under Section 313. When such being the case, this Court has to accept the medical evidence that it is a case of homicidal.
13. Now coming to the factual aspects of the case is concerned, it is a specific case of the prosecution that murder was committed in the intervening night, that too in the house of accused No.2 and also accused No.2 has not given any explanation as to how the deceased was strangulated, because the evidence available on record is
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR that it is a case of strangulation and though defence was taken that it is a case of suicide and an attempt was made to elicite the answer from the mouth of PW7 that accused No.2 as well as PW7 cut the rope and removed the deceased from the hanging position but the fact is very clear that the PW7 was not in the place of incident on the date of the incident and in his 164 statement, which is marked as Ex.P35, clearly discloses that he was at Goa on the date of the incident and in the evidence also he categorically deposes that he was at Goa. But it is an additional link comes to a conclusion that the very defence itself suggested that it is a case of suicide and both accused No.2 and PW7 removed the dead body from the hanging position. It is also important to note that a false defence was taken that it is a case of suicide. But even not suggested to the doctor that he committed the suicide and it is a case of suicide and not a strangulation. And even if the defence is that he has committed suicide, it ought to have suggested to the witness PW15, who is the material witness and who conducted the PM. Hence, the very
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR argument of the counsel appearing for the appellants that it is a case of suicide cannot be accepted.
14. Now coming to the evidence of recovery of rope is concerned. No doubt, there is some minor discrepancy with regard to the seizure of the rope. But the evidence of PW4 and PW8 is very clear that accused led the witnesses and also the police and produced the rope. No doubt, there is no stain in the rope. But it is a case of strangulation and it is not the case of the prosecution also that by using of weapon, blood was oozing from the neck. But it is only a ligature mark found on the neck. When such being the case, even in the cross examination of PW4 and PW8, defence did not put any questions to the recovery witnesses that the accused not led and produced any MO5 rope and even not disputed the recovery at the instance of the accused and the said circumstances also goes against the accused.
15. The other witness relied upon by the prosecution is PW5. PW5, in his evidence, says that having heard the barking sound in the midnight at 01.00 a.m., he woke up and he found the accused No.1 leaving the house of accused
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR No.2, PW5 also categorically deposed that he was sleeping in the pial and accused No.1 came out from the house and left the house in the small lane and the same was witnessed by him with the help of the street light. But he came to know about the death of the deceased in the early morning, when the accused No.2 informed the same to CW12 and people have also gathered, wherein she gave the information that he died on account of consuming of alcohol and also she categorically deposes making of further statement that she committed suicide and once again on insisting her, she made the statement that both herself and accused No.1 committed the murder. But in the cross examination of PW5 by the counsel appearing for the accused, except eliciting that if a person was moved in the night with the help of street light or with the help of the sunlight, used to find the difference and except this, nothing is suggested that he did not leave the house of the accused No.2 and in the cross examination of accused No.2 also, except eliciting that accused No.2 gave the complaint against his elder brother, younger brother and mother, nothing is elicited and also got elicited in the cross-
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR examination that at around 01.00 a.m., he heard the barking sound and he was sleeping in the pial of the house. The house of the deceased and his house are in the same line and located by the side of each other. Even got elicited that the street light is in front of the house of the deceased. But in the cross examination, it is elicited that not only he made the statement before the police and also he gave statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., but the same was denied. On perusal of the statement of PW5, as per Ex.P19, he categorically deposes that the accused No.2 did not make an extra judicial confession. But when she was taken to the police station, she admitted her guilt. When such being the case with regard to the extra judicial confession is concerned, the evidence of PW5 cannot be accepted and there is a discrepancy in the evidence of PW5. But with regard to the accused last seen by him in the midnight at 01.00 p.m. is not disputed and even not suggested to this witness that he did not witness the accused No.1 in the midnight. Hence, the last seen theory of the prosecution is also proved by examining the PW5.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. The other contention of the Addl. SPP appearing for the State that extra judicial confession is considered and that was made before PW1, PW6, PW9 and PW13 and particularly the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and considering Ex.P19-statement made before the learned Magistrate at the first instance by PW5, the theory of extra judicial confession cannot be accepted. And also it is elicited from the mouth of the witnesses PW1, PW6 and PW9 that the accused No.2 had lodged the complaint earlier to the family members of PW1, PW5, PW6 and PW9 and the same was in the year 2018. When such being the case, the extra judicial confession cannot be accepted. However, taking into note of the material available on record, there is no any explanation on the part of the accused No.2 when the death was taken place in her house that her husband died in the house and Section 106 of the Evidence Act attracts for not explaining the same.
17. The evidence available before the Court with regard to the motive is concerned that they were having illicit relationship between them, PW1 deposes before the
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR Court that accused No.1 was working with the deceased when deceased and the accused No.2 shifted to Goa and doing the fish business, wherein accused No.1 was working as a driver in the vehicle belongs to the deceased and at that time, illicit relationship was developed between them and even subsequent to the COVID-19, when they came back to the native, the accused No.1 was also staying at the distance of 4 kilometres from the house of accused No.2 and also the deceased and continued their relationship and the same is spoken by PW1 and also no explanation on the part of accused No.1 and 2 under Section 106 of Evidence Act. When such being the case, the Court can draw an inference that both of them are having an illicit relationship between them and death has also taken place in the house of accused No.2 and accused No.1 was last seen in the midnight and particularly, on the intervening night of the incident, which was spoken by PW5. When all these materials point out including the medical evidence and last seen witness and also the defence, which was taken it is a case of suicide but the same is not substantiated and the same is an additional
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR link in order to come to a conclusion in a circumstantial evidence and no explanation on the part of the accused in 313 statement and no explanation under Section 106 of Evidence Act. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with findings of the trial Court and the trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence rightly comes to the conclusion that the prosecution made out the case against accused No.1 and 2. Hence, answered the point as negative.
18. In view of the above discussions, we pass the following:
ORDER
1) Both the appeals are dismissed.
2) The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed.
3) Since accused No.2 is on suspension of sentence and bail, she is directed to surrender before the trial Court within two weeks from today and if she fails to surrender, the trial Court is directed to issue warrant and secure and commit the accused
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5980-DB CRL.A No. 100175 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100176 of 2025 HC-KAR No.2 to the prison under the conviction warrant.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE JTR/RKM CT:PA