- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200102 OF 2018 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS) BETWEEN: HANUMANTHA @ KUNT HANUMANTHA S/O SHARANAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/AT: WATAGAL VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI DASTAGIR SAB B. NADAF, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAVITAL POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SIDDLING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR IN S.C. No.71/2016 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: R Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.,) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.71/2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Sessions Judge’), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows: The deceased Basappa in this case is the father of complainant Basavaraja. As regards filing of the complaint previously against the accused and trial ended in acquittal, the accused bore animosity and ill-will against the deceased Basappa. Against this backdrop, on 22.03.2016 at about 6.30 a.m., at Watagal village, the deceased visited the store of one - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 Bhogavati Basavaraj, to purchase coconut and while returning home, on C.C road, the accused had a row with him where he threatened the deceased saying he will not spare him and that he would kill him. Following the row, he assaulted the deceased with a knife on his head, left eye-brow and stomach. Owing to this gruesome assault, his intestine popped out and the deceased collapsed in a pool of blood. One Boost Basavaraj- PW.8 was an eyewitness to the said incident, visited the complainant’s house to inform him about the accused stabbing Basappa. Thereafter, the complainant along with his elder brother, mother and other relatives made haste to the spot. Upon their arrival the accused fled the spot along with the knife. As Basappa had sustained bleeding injuries, PW.1 and others called 108 for an Ambulance and shifted him to nearby Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, the complainant i.e., son of the deceased lodged a complaint before PW.21 the then PSI of respondent-Police as per Ex.P1 against the accused. On the strength of Ex.P.1, PW.21 registered an FIR in Crime No.31/2016 dated 22.03.2016 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Thereafter, PW.21, investigated the case by drawing spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, an inquest pachanama on the corpse of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 the deceased was carried out as per Ex.P3 and the statements of all witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, on 26.03.2016 he arrested the accused, based on his voluntary statement, weapon used in the crime i.e., M.O.5 under Ex.P12 and M.O.6 i.e., shirt worn by the accused at the time of the crime under Ex.P10 were recovered. Thereafter, on obtaining necessary documents form the concerned authorities the charge-sheet was laid against the accused before the committal Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 3. After committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the aforementioned offence and the same was read over verbatim to him. However, the accused denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution collectively examined 22 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.22, marked 25 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 and identified 06 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.6. 5. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defence of the accused is of absolute denial and that of false implication. 6. Following the assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the charges levelled against him and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae Sri. Dastagir Sab B. Nadaf, for the appellant and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor Sri. Siddaling P. Patil for the respondent-State. We have also perused the records made available before us. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred while convicting the appellant without duly appreciating the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 evidence and documents placed before him. According to him, though the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18, they are not the eye-witnesses to the incident and according to their evidence, PW.8 informed them about the incident and when they reached the spot, the deceased was in a pool of blood and the accused was spotted at the place of incident holding M.O.5-knife. Since they did not witness the incident of actual assault, much credence cannot be attached to their evidence. He further contended that PW.8 the actual eye-witness to the incident, turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. As such, the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18, are rendered uncredible. He further contended that the recovery of the knife MO.5 and shirt of the accused MO.6 under Exs.P12 and 10 respectively are not within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. As such the said circumstances also remains unproved by the prosecution. PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 are the close relatives of the deceased who are the partisan witnesses, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon to prove and establish the guilt of accused. Additionally, he submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witness which goes to the root of the case of the prosecution. As such, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 learned Sessions Judge erred by not appreciating these aspects in right perspective and passed the impugned judgment which is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State contended that, judgment under this appeal neither suffers from perversity nor illegality as the learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined the evidence on record and passed a well-reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference. He submitted that PW.1 who is none other than the son of the deceased, lodged the complaint i.e., Ex.P1 forthwith following the incident by stating that PW.8 informed him regarding the incident; PW.8 along with PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 rushed to the spot and witnessed the deceased lying in a pool of blood and the accused was in the spot holding MO.5-knife. Thereafter he fled the spot. PW.1, has categorically deposed this in his evidence and PWs.9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 have also deposed similarly in their evidence. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. Nevertheless, the prosecution also proved the motive for committing the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 crime and recovered MO.5-knife and MO.6-shirt at the behest of the accused under Exs.P12 and 10 respectively. Additionally, the oral testimony of the above witnesses unambivalently corroborates with the medical evidence of the doctor who conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased. As such, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the charges levelled against him. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusing the entire evidence on record including the impugned judgment, the following points surface for our consideration. 1. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from either perversity or illegality? 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC? 11. In the instant case, albeit the prosecution examined 22 witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the accused, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 however, it is redundant to delve into the nitty gritty of individual evidence of all witnesses. 12. In order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.12-Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased by issuing postmortem report as per Ex.P17 and also opinion on the weapon used in the crime as per Ex.P18. On careful perusal of Ex.P17, stipulates the following four injuries: “1. A lacerated wound seen on left zygometric temporal region of skull measuring 4 x 1 x 5 cm fresh wound. 2. A lacerated wound on left forearm 2 in number measuring 7 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm, other one 4 x 1 cm x 5cm in the middle of left forearm, one after another. 3. A stab wound in the left middle side of the abdomen above 4 cm from umbilicus intestine were outside the body. Blood was oozing from open wound.” 13. Further he opined that the cause of death is due to ‘shock and haemorrhage’ as a result of stabbed injuries to the abdomen sustained. Aside from that, he has stated that all the injuries sustained by the deceased are anti-mortem in nature. Further, the prosecution also relied on Ex.P3-inquest panchanama, drawn by PW.21-Investigating Officer and PW.22 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 is the witness for the same. Both these witnesses identified the injures on the corpse while drawing Ex.P3. Hence, on perusal of Ex.P17, the evidence of Doctor-PW.12 i.e., Ex.P3 and the evidence of PW.21 and 22, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased. Even otherwise, the defence has not seriously disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. 14. To connect the accused with the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution significantly relied on the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18. On careful perusal of the evidence of these witnesses, PW.1-son of the deceased Basappa set the criminal law into motion by lodging complaint-Ex.P1. By reiterating the contents of Ex.P1, P.W.1 deposed that the accused bore animosity and ill-will against the deceased for previously lodging a complaint and filing a criminal case against the accused, albeit the trial ended in acquittal. As such, on 22.03.2016 at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased was out purchasing coconut at Bhogavati Basavaraja’s store the accused picked a row with him and assaulted him with M.O.5-knife causing grievous bleeding injuries. Owing to the assault the deceased succumbed - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 forthwith. According to this witness, one Boost Basavarja-P.W.8 informed him about the incident. Immediately, he made haste to the spot along with PWs.9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 and witnessed his father lying in a pool of blood due to the injuries sustained and the accused was spotted holding MO.5-knife. On spotting them, the accused fled the spot along with MO.5. Thereafter, PW.1 called 108 ambulance and shifted him to a nearby Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. PW.1 also identified MO.5-knife used by the accused. The evidence of PW.1 clearly corroborates with the contents of his complaint i.e., Ex.P1. All witnesses have identified M.O.5 i.e., the weapon used in the crime. Albeit these witnesses were cross-examined by the defence at length, however, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them to discard their testimony. 15. PW.12 the doctor who conducted the autopsy opined as per Ex.P18 that the injuries found on the corpse of the deceased could have been inflicted by M.O.5-knife. Further, the prosecution has placed the evidence of PW.7 and PW.8 the witnesses for the recovery mahazar of M.O.5-knife seized under Ex.P.12 and M.O.6 shirt of the accused worn at the time of crime under Ex.P.10. Both PWs.7 and 8 the witness - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 for recovery of M.Os.5 and 6 have categorically stated that based on the voluntary statement of accused i.e., as per Ex.P20, the accused led them along with police on 26.03.2016 and at his behest, the police recovered M.Os.5 and 6 under Ex.P12 and 10 respectively. Apart from this evidence, PW.20- the Investigating Officer also deposed backing the evidence. Hence, the prosecution proved the recovery of the weapon used by the accused in the crime. Although minor contradictions are forthcoming in the evidence of these witnesses, the same does not go to the root of the case of the prosecution. 16. It is also pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer sent the weapon and shirt of the accused M.Os.5 and 6 along with the clothes of the deceased i.e., M.Os.1 to 4 for FSL examination and the scientific officer-PW.5 examined the same and issued a certificate as per Ex.P7 opining that human blood stains of B blood group was found on all the M.Os. As such, M.O.5 i.e., the weapon used by the accused in the crime as deposed by PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 and the doctor’s opinion establish that the injuries sustained were caused using M.O.5. Besides M.O.5 was recovered at the behest of the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 accused and the blood stains found on M.O.5 matches with the blood stains found on the clothes worn by the deceased. Thus, it is categorically established that the accused used M.O.5 to murder the deceased Basappa on the fateful day. 17. No doubt, the sole eye-witness to the incident, PW.8-Boost Basavaraja turned hostile to the prosecution case. However, it is pertinent to observe that the place of incident is situated within 150 feet away from the residence of PWs.9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18. This was proved by the evidence of PW.4- Assistant Executive Engineer, who prepared a spot sketch- Ex.P6. As discussed supra, it is the specific case of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 that immediately after the incident PW.1 informed them and they all rushed to the spot, at that time, the accused was standing on the spot by holding MO.5-knife and they got to know that the accused is perpetrator of the crime. The evidence of these material witnesses reads as under: (i) PW.1-Basavaraj has stated that ‘he along with PWs.9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 visited the spot at the time of incident’ they collectively witnessed the deceased bleeding owing to the injuries he sustained, the accused immediately fled the spot with an iron knife. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 (ii) PW.10-Holiyama deposed that, ‘she along with her sister and others visited the spot and on seeing them, the accused fled the spot with the knife in his hand’. (iii) PW.11-Somamma deposed that ‘ahead of them reaching the spot the accused on seeing them fled the spot holding MO.5-knife.’ (iv) PW.15-Mounesh deposed that ‘PW.8 informed them about the incident, she along with others made haste to the spot and witnessed her father lying in a pool of blood upon being grievously injured and on seeing them the accused fled from the spot’. 18. Hence, the evidence of these witnesses categorically establishes that the accused assaulted the deceased using M.O.5-knife and that he was spotted at the place of incident holding M.O.5-knife and on seeing these witnesses, he fled the spot with the weapon in hand. 19. In such circumstances, credibility has to be given to the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18, albeit they did not witness the accused perpetrating the crime, however, their evidence falls well within the ambit of Section 6 of the Indian - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, making these witnesses res gestae witnesses to the prosecution case. Section 6 and illustration A to Section 6 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is extracted for the ready reference here under: 6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.– Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. Illustrations (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. 20. Whereas, Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 also reads as above with regard to relevancy of facts i.e., Chapter II. Both Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 describes the relevancy of “closely connected facts”. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 355, in paragraphs No.46 to 49, it is observed as under; “46. We have also taken notice of one another aspect of the matter emerging from the evidence on record. PW 3 Nasir Rajjak Khan in his oral testimony (Ext. 10) has deposed that at around - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 11.30 pm in the night, he saw 10-15 boys quarrelling with each other in front of a shop by name “Sai Car Auto Consultant”. He has further deposed that at that time PW 1 Asgar Shaikh came and conveyed to him that he had suffered injuries on his head and hands. Asgar Shaikh also informed Nasir that he along with Firoz (PW 2) was going to the police station. Asgar further informed Nasir that Abbas Baig was seriously injured. PW 3 Nasir, on hearing the aforesaid from Asgar, reached the spot where Abbas Baig (deceased) was lying in an injured condition. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination of the PW 3 Nasir a suggestion was put to him that he had inquired with PW 1 Asgar Shaikh as to what had happened and Asgar Shaikh in turn narrated the incident to Nasir. This suggestion put by the defence counsel to the PW 3 Nasir was answered in the affirmative. This part of the evidence of the PW 3 Nasir is corroborated by the evidence of the PW 1 Asgar Shaikh. 47. The reason for referring to the aforesaid a piece of evidence is that the PW 3 Nasir Rajjak Khan (Ext. 10) could be termed as a res gestae witness. This principle of res gestae is embodied in Section 6 of the Act 1872: “6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.—Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.” 48. In the case of Sukhar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1999) 9 SCC 507, this Court noticed the position of law with regard to Sections 6 & 7 respectively of the Act 1872 thus:— “6. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule whereunder the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the provisions of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter. The aforesaid rule as it is stated in Wigmore's Evidence Act reads thus:— “Under the present exception [to hearsay] an utterance is by hypothesis, offered as an assertion to evidence the fact asserted (for example that a car-brake was set or not set), and the only condition is that it shall have been made spontaneously, i.e. as the natural effusion of a state of excitement. Now this state of excitement may well continue to exist after the exciting fact has ended. The declaration, therefore, may be admissible even though subsequent to the occurrence, provided, it is near enough in time to allow the assumption that the exciting influence continued.” 7. Sarkar on Evidence (Fifteenth Edition) summaries the law relating to applicability of Section 6 of the Act 1872 thus:— “1. The declarations (oral or written) must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant thereto; they are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover the declarations must relate to and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous or subsequent thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction which is continuous. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 2. The declarations must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely the narrative of a past. 3. The declaration and the act may be by the same person, or they may be by different persons, e.g., the declarations of the victim, assailant and bystanders. In conspiracy, riot, the declarations of all concerned in the common object are admissible. 4. Though admissible to explain or corroborate, or to understand the significance of the act, declarations are not evidence of the truth of the matters stated.” 49. The rule embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae. What it means is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction” becomes relevant by itself. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantial contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence.” 21. Applying the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18, carries evidentiary value equal to that of eye-witnesses, although they did not witness the incident. All these witnesses were well acquainted with the animosity between the accused and the deceased owing a previous criminal case. Additionally, the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 accused has failed to provide prudent explanation regarding his presence in the scene who was spotted wielding a weapon. Therefore, the evidence of the above witnesses can be relied upon as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, as their presence in the scene of occurrence and witnessing the accused in the scene wielding the weapon connects the accused with the crime. It is incorrect to hold that the charges levelled against the accused have not been proved for the reasons that the sole eyewitness to the crime turned hostile, when there are cogent evidence of other material witnesses placed by the prosecution to prove and establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime. 22. As the case on hand, rests on the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident, the prosecution is necessarily not duty bound to prove the Mens Rea for the incident, nevertheless, through the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18, the prosecution has proved and established that owing an earlier animosity the accused bore ill-will against the deceased and this drove him to commit the crime. 23. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are contradictions in the evidence of - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18. It is a settled position of law, minor contradiction in the evidence of material witnesses do not go to the root of the prosecution case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka reported in (2019) 8 SCC 359, held in paragraph No.13 as under: “13. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be to assess whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to be truthful. Once the impression is formed, it is necessary for the court to evaluate the evidence and the alleged discrepancies and then, to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case. If the evidence of eyewitness is found to be credible and trustworthy, minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to doubt the trustworthiness of the witness.” 24. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that PWs.1, 9, 10 and 11 are the relatives of the deceased and that they are the partisan witnesses to the incident as such their evidence cannot be considered. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravasahebgouda Alias Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 5 SCC 391, held in Paragraph No.17 as under: - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 "17. “It is clear that it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters. Further in Paragraph No.25 of the said judgment, it is stated that “a witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his/her testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even “partisan” or “interested” witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not one of the general applications”. 25. Applying the above findings in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the instant case, the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 10 and 11 cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they are the family members of the deceased. On the comprehensive re-appreciation of the collective evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has passed a well-reasoned judgment. Therefore, the same does not call for any interference. 26. With this, we answer Point No.1 in the negative and Point No.2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Appeal No.200102/2018 filed by the appellant/accused is dismissed being devoid of merits. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:691-DB CRL.A No. 200102 of 2018 ii. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 27.04.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.71/2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Raichur is affirmed. Though the learned counsel Sri. Shambuling S. Salimath was appointed as a counsel by the Legal Services Authority, he expressed his inability to be present before this Court on the date of hearing, as such we appointed Sri. Dastagir Sab B. Nadaf as Amicus Curiae to render his assistance to the case. Accordingly, the Legal Services Authority is hereby directed to pay a Retainer fee of Rs.25,000/- to Sri. Dastagir Sab B. Nadaf. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: PS