Karnataka High Court
Kumbara Kotresha S/O. Eranna vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB
CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100166 OF 2022 (C)
BETWEEN:
KUMBARA KOTRESHA S/O. ERANNA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,
R/O. NANDIBANDI VILLAGE,
HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST. BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CPI, SANDUR CIRCLE,
Digitally signed
by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
MARIYAMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
YASHAVANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
NARAYANKAR DHARWAD
NOW R/BY. ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENCH
DHARWAD
Date:
2025.06.18
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
11:53:14
+0530
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 12.01.2021,
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED DATED 13.01.2021, PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, (SITTING
AT HOSAPETE) IN S.C. NO.5054/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT FROM THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB
CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This appeal by the convicted accused directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2021 and order of sentence dated 13.01.2021 passed in S.C.No.5054/2017 dated 12.01.2021 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bellary (Sitting at Hosapete) (hereinafter called 'the learned Sessions Judge) whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment till his last breath and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment for six month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that, the deceased in the instant case one Eedigara Ramappa, was residing along with his children at Nandi Bandi Village after demise of his wife. About 3 to 4 years prior to June 2017, the appellant/accused picked up a quarrel with deceased as he -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR used to ogle the wife of the accused. The accused had threatened the deceased that he will do away his life. When things stood thus, on 30.06.2017 at about 12:30 p.m. when deceased-Eedigara Ramappa was sitting beneath a peepal tree chatting with the villagers, the accused all of a sudden went behind the deceased and assaulted him with an axe on his neck, resulting in the deceased-Eedigara Ramappa falling down. The accused again assaulted with the same axe on his neck and the deceased bled to death on the spot. Though PW.1 the son of the deceased and PWs.8 to 11 who were present there attempted to rescue the deceased but by that time, the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the son of deceased i.e., PW1-Complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police against the accused as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.10-the then Police Sub-Inspector of respondent-Police registered FIR against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.108/2017 as per Ex.P17.
3. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer-PW.12 conducted the further investigation by drawing spot mahazar, -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR inquest panchanama and later arrested the accused on 01.07.2017 and based on his voluntary statement, effected the seizer and after recording the statement of material witnesses, and obtaining documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC before the committal Court.
4. Post committal of case before the Session Court, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the aforementioned offence and read over the same to him. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 15 witnesses as PWs.1 to 15 and got marked 29 documents as Exs.P1 to P29 so also identified 7 material objects as MOs.1 to 7.
6. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him and sentenced him as stated -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai for the appellant and learned Addl. SPP Sri A.M.Gundawade for the respondent-State.
8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that, the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred while convicting the appellant/accused without appreciating the evidence in a right perspective. He further contended that, the evidence of eyewitnesses-PWs.1, 5, 6 and 14, suffers from severe infirmities and the same cannot be relied to prove the guilt of accused. He also contended that, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the motive for the alleged incident namely that, the deceased used to ogle at his wife. He alternatively contended that, the incident was caused in a fit of rage without any pre-meditation. In such circumstance, the act of the accused squarely comes within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 part I of IPC. With these submissions, he prays to set-aside the conviction or to modify the sentence.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR
9. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP contended that judgment under this appeal does not suffers from any perversity or illegality, since the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that, the evidence of eyewitness-PWs.1, 5, 6 and 14 are consistent and categorically establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He also contended that, the evidence of PW.8 i.e., the wife of accused, clearly establishes the motive for the alleged incident. Further, the prosecution also proved the recovery of weapon-M.O.1 used for the commission of crime by the accused at his instance. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having heard for the learned counsel for the respective parties and so also perusal of the entire evidence on record, the points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality?
2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offence -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him for rigorous imprisonment till his life time?
11. In order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased-Eedigara Ramappa, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.13-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P26. The Doctor opined that the cause of death is due to "hemorrhage and shock secondary to the injury to major vessels-(RT)-internal carotid artery and others due to injury caused assault by sharp weapon (axe)". PW.13-Doctor also rendered his final opinion by confirming the cause of death as per Ex.P27. Aside from that, he has stated that all the injuries sustained by the deceased are ante-mortem in nature. Further, the prosecution also relied on Ex.P19-inquest panchanama conducted on the body of the deceased by PW.12. PWs.2 and 7-the panch witnesses noticed two injuries on the body of the deceased while conducting inquest panchanama. On careful analysis of the evidence of these witnesses coupled with Ex.P26, 27 and 19, we are of the view that the prosecution -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR proved the homicidal death of deceased beyond reasonable doubt.
12. To connect the accused to the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.1- complainant i.e., son of the deceased and PWs.5, 6 and 14 the villagers who are independent eyewitnesses to the incident. On careful analysis of the evidence of these witnesses, PWs.5, 6 and 14 have unequivocally deposed that on the fateful day, they and deceased-Eedigara Ramappa were chatting beneath a peepal tree in their village and all of a sudden the accused came to the spot holding an axe-M.O.1 and repeatedly assaulted the deceased on his neck. As a result of the injuries, the deceased succumbed on the spot. They further stated that the accused committed the said incident as he suspected that the deceased had an illicit affair with his wife. PW.1-the son of the deceased is also an eyewitness to the incident. According to him, on the date of incident he was walking to his field, and saw his father and PWs.5, 6 and 14 were chatting beneath a peepal tree and all of a sudden the accused appeared there and assaulted his father with M.O.1-axe on his neck. Due to the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR injuries, his father succumbed on the spot. The evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 14 corroborates each other. Though these witnesses were subjected to intense and extensive cross- examination by the defence, yet their testimony could not be shaken except pointing out to minor discrepancies. No material contradictions are found in the evidence of PW.1 and his complaint-Ex.P1 lodged at the earliest point of time. Additionally, all these witnesses have identified the weapon- M.O.1 used by the accused for commission of crime. In such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 14.
13. It is equally important to note that PW.8-the wife of the accused also visited the spot soon after the incident. According to her, when she reached the spot, the deceased had succumbed to the injuries and her husband was holding the blood stained Axe-M.O.1. Later, he made a confession with the people assembled there that he had committed the murder of deceased as he attempted to outrage the modesty of his wife. This evidence of PW.8 further corroborates the testimony of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 14. Further, the oral testimony of these
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR witnesses clearly corroborates the medical evidence i.e., the evidence of PW.13-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased and observed the injuries on the neck of the deceased. The Investigation Officer-PW.12 recovered M.O.1- axe used for the commission of crime at the instance of accused under mahazar Ex.P8, PWs.3 and 4 are the witnesses for the said mahazar. Further, PW.12 sent MO.1-axe for chemical examination and FSL report-Ex.P28 reveals that the same is stained with human blood group of 'A'. Hence, the oral evidence led by the prosecution in this case corroborates to the medical and scientific evidence.
14. The accused did not come up with any probable defence either in the 313 statement or by any defence evidence as to why he has been falsely implicated in the case. Admittedly, there is no animosity between the accused and the prosecution witnesses. Hence, on overall scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. Hence, the conviction of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR accused for the charged offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is justified.
15. Insofar the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has imposed a sentence directing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment i.e., throughout his life. In our considered view, the said sentence is not sustainable under law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan and others reported in 2016 (7) SCC has held that awarding of said special category sentence, in substitution of death sentence, that is, sentence barring remission under Cr.P.C. for specified term beyond 14 years, or life imprisonment barring remission for rest of life, held (per majority), is valid - but power under Arts. 72 and 161, which is not the same as the statutory power of remission, is not affected - Award of non-remittable specified sentence or life imprisonment barring remission for rest of life, held, not violative of separation of powers. Such special sentence when imposed under substantive provisions of IPC, does not overlap procedural power under Cr.P.C. either considering crime situation in India (particularly nexus between hardened
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR criminals and ill-gotten wealth, and nature of heinous crimes on the rise), delay in disposal of cases, and balancing interest of victims with those of convicts, such special category sentence is necessary. Further held (per majority), such special category sentence can only be imposed by High Court or Supreme Court and not by trial Court.
16. In such circumstances, the Sessions Court could not have exercised power to impose imprisonment on the accused to suffer imprisonment throughout life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Nevertheless, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharma Deo Yadav V/s State of Uttara Pradesh reported in (2014) 5 SCC 509, laid down three tests, namely, Crime test, Criminal test and rarest of rare test. In the present both the crime and criminal tests have been satisfied against the accused but, rarest of rare test is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the same by leading cogent evidence that the crime was committed in a barbaric manner. Hence, the instant case would not fall under the category of rarest of rare case. As such, the punishment
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR awarded by the trial Court imposing imprisonment throughout his life has to be modified to life imprisonment.
17. In that view of the matter, we answer the point No.1 raised above in the negative and point No.2 in partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Appeal filed by the accused is hereby allowed-in-part.
ii. The judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.5054/2017 dated 12.01.2021 by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, Sitting at Hosapete, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is confirmed.
iii. The sentence imposed against the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment throughout life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months in addition to life imprisonment, is hereby modified.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7540-DB CRL.A No. 100166 of 2022 HC-KAR iv. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and shall pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
v. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with the copy of this order to the learned Sessions Judge, forthwith for necessary compliance.
SD/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3