- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 488 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI BINU VARGHESE S/O C.P. VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O BASAVANAGADDE AALIKOPPA VILLAGE N.R. PURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 134. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH N.R. POLICED STATION BENGALURU-560 062 REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. SOUMYA C MATHEW W/O BHADRINATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS STAFF NURSE, M.S. RAMAIAH HOSPITAL NEW BEL ROAD, MS RAMAIAH NAGAR MSR IT POST BENGALURU-560 054. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MATHIMARA, AALIKOPPA VILLAGE Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 N.R. PUA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 134. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2021 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE ACCUSED, PASSED IN C.C.NO.494/2021, BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, N.R.PURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AGAINST THIS PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304(2) OF IPC, NOW PENDING IN S.C.NO.167/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CAV ORDER The Petitioner has filed this Criminal Petition seeking to quash entire proceedings, charge sheet in S.C No. 167/2021 pending before District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, arising out of C.C No. 494/2021 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, N.R Pura, Chikkamaglur and to set aside order dated 11.10.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 304(2) of I.PC, 1860. 1.1 The case of the prosecution is that when the Petitioner/ accused and the deceased along with the others had consumed the alcohol, at that time, a quarrel took place - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 between them and in the said scuffle the accused, fully knowing the age of the deceased, pushed him to the ground, due to which he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. It was alleged that the accused, despite having full knowledge that it may cause serious injuries, failed to help him after seeing the deceased at the same place at 6:30 pm. 2. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2, the first informant lodged an F.I.R in Cr. No. 0056/2021 dated 13.06.2021 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The Police, after conducting investigation, submitted a charge sheet dated 14.07.2021 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304(2) of IPC by omitting section 302 of IPC. subsequently, the learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R Pura, Chikmagalur took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the accused by order dated 11.10.2021 in C.C No 494/2021. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the District and Sessions Court, Chikmagalur which is pending in S.C No. 167/2021. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the petitioner has filed this instant petition. 4. Shri Amar Correa, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the post mortem report indicates that the death was due to cardiac arrest as a result of coronary artery disease and the deceased had consumed alcohol before the death - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 (natural Death). Hence, the medical opinion clearly discloses that the death was not caused due to assault made by the accused herein and or the fall of the deceased. Hence, there is no prima facie case to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304(2) of IPC and he relied on the following decisions : (i) Richhpal Singh Meena v. Ghasi and Others (2014) 8 SCC 918. (ii) Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2007) 15 SCC 494, Para no.8,9,12,13. (iii) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Ors, SLP (Crl) No. 4599/2021, Para no. 3. (iv) Satish Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr (2012) 13 SCC 614, Para no. 21. (v) State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors (1977) 2 SCC 699, Para no. 7. (vi) Ramlingam and Ors v. N Viswanathan (Crl. Appeal No. 212/2024).para no. 2, 5 10-12. (vii) State of Haryana and Ors v. Bhajan lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335. 5. Per Contra, Shri. P Chandrashekar learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ defacto complainant submitted that the eyewitnesses have categorically stated that the accused pushed the deceased to the ground and due to which the deceased succumbed to death. Hence, the charge sheet material discloses the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioner accused and there is a prima facie case to proceed against the accused herein. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 5.1 Further, he submits that the blood stained clothes were recovered from the accused which indicates that the incident has occurred and the death was caused due to the act of the accused herein. It was contended that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that a similar petition was filed previously, i.e, Crl. Petition No. 6454/ 2021, before this Court and was withdrawn by the petitioner dated 08.12.2021. Therefore, it was contended that the present petition was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5.2 The Learned HCGP for the respondent-State reiterated the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. In support, learned Counsel for Respondent no.2 placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Kusha Duruka v. The State of Odisha (2024) INSC 46. (ii) Ghulum Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Ors, SLP (Crl) No. 4599/2021. (iii) Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr (2023) INSC 955. (iv) Manik B v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and Anr, SLP(Crl) No. 2924 of 2023. (v) P Rangaroa v. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P No. 33403/2022). - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 6. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The factual matrix of this case is that on 12.06.2021 at around 4 p.m. the petitioner herein, purchased 6 packets of 90 ml. liquor, and gave two packets each to the deceased C.P. Mathew and CW-25 Ram Poojary. All of them went near the house of the deceased C.P. Mathew between 4 and 5 pm and had their drinks with the petitioner herein and the deceased C.P. Mathew started quarrelling with each other and started to push each other. 7.1 It is specifically alleged that the petitioner, despite knowing that the deceased C.P. Mathew being 73 years old, and may could suffer fatal injury to his life he was pushed, in the heat of anger with the deceased and the petitioner pushed him thereafter, he fell on the road, due to which there were abrasions on the head and knees of the deceased and the deceased C.P. Mathew could not get up from the said place and succumbed to death between 6 PM and 6 AM of the following day. 7.2 It is further alleged that this petitioner, despite knowing that deceased had fallen on the road and despite having full knowledge that the same would cause serious injuries, has not helped him despite seeing him on the same day at the same place around 6.30 PM and hence he has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 committed the offence punishable under Section 304(2) of the IPC 8. Before proceedings, it is pertinent to extract the provision of sections 304 of IPC which read as under. “Section 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death”. 9. The Petitioner contends that the investigating officers have failed to establish that the deceased death was ‘homicidal’, relied on the case of Richhpal Singh Meena-v- Ghasi others, (2014) 8 SCC 918, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the homicidal provisions, more specifically concerning with Section, 299, 300, 302, 304 and 304A of IPC has ruled as follows: Having considered all the decisions cited before us (and perhaps there are many more on the subject but not cited), in our opinion, a five-step inquiry is necessary. (i) Is there a homicide? (ii) If yes, is it a culpable homicide or a 'not-culpable homicide? (iii) if it is a culpable homicide, is the offence one of culpable homicide amounting to murder (Section 300 of the IPC) or is it a culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 of the IPC) ? (iv) If it is a not-culpable homicide' then a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 case under Section 304-A of the IPC is made out. (v) If it is not possible to identify the person who has committed the homicide, the provisions to identify the person who has committed the homicide, the provisions of Section 72 of the IPC may be invoked." 9.1 He placed reliance on the Advanced Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha lyer, which defines homicide as under: "Homicide is the killing of man by man, or through agencies or instruments, animate or inanimate, put into action by man." Homicide, as it is legally taken, is when slain with a man's will, but not with malice prepend." 10. As per the complaint dated 13.06.2021 filed by CW- 1, it was stated that the accused by name Binu Varghese and his wife used to quarrel with the complainant’s father. On 12.06.2021 at 7.19 pm, the CW-1 received a phone call from the wife of the accused and stated that they assaulted the deceased, and threw him in the gutter. 11. On 13.06.2021 at 6.20 am, a phone call was received by the complainant’s brother from the accused who informed him that the deceased person was drunk and lying on the road and his purse contains Rs.1,000/- and said not to upload the statements in social media. On the same day, at 6.39 am, the brother of the complainant again received a call stating that the deceased was dead. 12. At the time when the CW-1 and CW-6 visited the spot, they found that there were signs of injuries on the body of the deceased near the neck, injuries on the right side of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 the heart, and injuries on the stomach. CW-1 suspected that since there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased as informed by CW-9, CW-27. 13. Based on the post mortem report and findings of FSL and HPE report dated 8.07.2021, it was the opinion of the doctor that death was caused due to cardiac arrest as a result of coronary artery disease and the deceased had consumed alcohol before the death (Natural). 14. Respondent No.2 contended that there was a recovery of blood samples which were found on the clothes of the accused and was sent to RFSL for conducting tests. Accordingly, RFSL Report dated 06.07.2021 indicates that there was the presence of blood stained on the articles recovered. However, the blood group of the stains were not determined as to indicate that it matches with the deceased blood group, in the absence of which such contention of the respondent cannot be safely relied upon. 14.1 A perusal of the post mortem report dated 13.06.2021, the external injuries found on the deceased person include the following: (i) superficial abrasion irregular measuring about 7 cm in length and 1 cm in breadth over the head. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 (ii) superficial abrasion over right chest about 0.5cm x 0.5 cm, linear contusion 5 cm in length, 0.5cm breath over right side of neck. (iii) superficial abrasion over abdomen on right measuring 2cm x 1 cm. (iv) superficial abrasion measuring 3 cm x 2 cm over the right knee. (v) superficial abrasion about 2 cm x 0.5 cm on the medial aspect on the left side of the knee. 15. On 13.07.2021, an opinion with respect to whether mere fall into the drain while walking causes cardiac infarction was obtained, accordingly a doctor of Taluk General hospital opined that “mere fall into the drain while walking may not lead to cardiac infarction. However, after having cardial infarction, a person may sustain mild injuries over head”. 16. CW-27 under section 164 Cr.P.C statement deposed that on 12.06.2021 at 6.15- 6.30 pm, he saw Mathew who had fallen on the right side of the road and the accused was standing on the left side, Raj pujari was sitting beside the accused person. The accused said that Mathew was lying on the road and when CW-27 called the deceased he replied that he was C.P Mathew. Therefore, CW-27 felt that the deceased was feeling well and he went away. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 17. CW-9 made statement under section 164 Cr.P.C that when he visited the house of deceased person, the accused was drunk and when CW-9 stated that there was necessary to conduct Post-mortem report to determine cause of death, accused denied it and the accused took a knife and attempted to assault CW-9 and his brother. The accused admitted that he had killed the deceased, when CW-9 asked about why the accused came to drink alcohol at 5.30 am in the morning, the accused replied that there was a quarrel and he had pushed the deceased. 18. The eye-witness CW-25 to the incident deposed that the accused person quarrelled with the deceased and the accused person pushed the deceased and all were in a drunken state, he fell in the gutter and sustained injuries, and later the deceased Mathew was found to be dead the next day of the incident. 19. CW-26, who was a circumstantial witness, made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C dated 17.06.2021, stating that on 12.06.2021 at 5.00-5.30 pm, he saw the accused and the deceased lying on the road. When the accused saw CW-26, he took a stick and attempted to assault him. 20. CW-30 in Section 161 statement dated 17.01.2021 stated that the accused attempted to assault CW-30 and his - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 brother, when he insisted on the accused to conduct a post- mortem of the deceased, thereafter the accused attempted to assault CW-30 and his brother with a stick. 21. To a Specific query raised by the investigating officer with the doctor of the Taluk General Hospital, Narashimharajapura, who conducted the post mortem, the doctor opines as follows: "By a mere fall into the drain while walking it is most unlikely to trigger myocardial infarction. However, after having a myocardial infarction, if the person falls down, he may sustain mild injuries overhead. 21.1 In the post mortem report furnished by the Taluk General Ho Narashimharajapura, it has opined as follows: "On perusal of post-mortem findings, FSL report and HPE report, I am of the opinion that the death is due to cardiac arrest as a result of coronary artery disease. However, the deceased had consumed alcohol prior to death (natural death)" 22. In Arun Nivalaji More vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 12 SCC 613, the Apex Court held that when the ocular evidence of eyewitnesses is reliable and well corroborated by medical and other evidence, inspiring confidence that the accused had the intention to cause fatal injuries, such evidence is sufficient to prove the charge of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. This intention is to be gathered from various circumstances and evidence, such as the location of the injury, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 the nature of the weapon used, the force applied while inflicting the injury, and other relevant considerations. 22.1. Relying on the above-mentioned case, the petitioner in the present case contended that whether the accused had any intention to kill the deceased must be determined by considering the facts of each case. 22.2. The petitioner relied on the case of Ramalingam & Ors vs. N. Viswanathan, Crl.A. No. 212 of 2024, wherein it was alleged that the first appellant exhorted the second appellant to kill the deceased, following which the second appellant picked up a stick lying at the site and assaulted her on the chest. Thereafter, the first and third appellants kicked the deceased on her chest and stomach. The appellant filed a discharge application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the High Court. However, the Apex Court allowed the petition, considering the expert witness’s examination and the post-mortem report, which stated that the deceased died of natural causes and that no external injuries were found on her body. 22.3. In the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors., SLP (Crl) No. 4599/2021, the accused assaulted the complainant’s family members and allegedly held the hands of the appellant’s wife and daughter. As a result, the wife of the appellant suffered injuries, was taken to the hospital, and was later found dead. The accused were charged under Section 302 of the IPC. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 However, the post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure. The trial court discharged the accused from the charge under Section 302 IPC and instead framed charges under Section 304 Part II IPC. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and discharged the accused from the offence of murder. 22.3.1. The Supreme Court, while setting aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, held that medical examination evidence is not substantive evidence; rather, the opinion or statement of the doctor in court alone is considered substantive evidence. It further held that the trial court was incorrect in concluding that the post-mortem report had no nexus with the alleged assault. The question of whether the alleged assault had a connection with the cause of death must be determined only after recording the oral evidence of eyewitnesses and expert testimony, along with other substantive evidence on record. 23. The petitioner contended that, in the present case, the evidence is insufficient to charge the accused under Section 304(II) IPC and relied on the case of State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in exercising the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the court can quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 23.1. In Satish Mehra v. State of Delhi & Anr. (2012) 13 SCC 614, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the allegations in the complaint or FIR do not constitute a prima facie case or a triable offence, the proceedings against the accused could be quashed at an early or later stage. 23.2. In Harishchandra Prasad Mani & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2007) 15 SCC 494, the Apex Court allowed an appeal filed by the accused, who had been charged under Sections 302, 201, 328, and 120-B IPC. The Court held that cognizance of an offence cannot be taken merely on suspicion; there must be at least some material indicating the guilt of the accused. 24. Respondent No. 2 contends that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that a similar petition was previously filed and later withdrawn. Therefore, he argues that the present petition is not maintainable. He relied on the case of Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha (2024) INSC 46, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the issue of non-disclosure of information related to the listing of bail petitions before different judges of the same High Court. 24.1. In the aforementioned case, the Apex Court issued specific directions regarding the listing of all bail applications before the same judge if filed by different accused in the same FIR. The Court also emphasized the duty of the investigating officer and counsel to disclose all material facts. In cases of non-disclosure, the Court may initiate contempt proceedings in - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 the exercise of its inherent power to prevent the abuse of the legal process. 24.2. In support of this argument, Respondent No. 2 relied on Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2023) INSC 955, wherein the Apex Court addressed the issue of the maintainability of a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on similar grounds that were available at the time of filing the first petition. Referring to the Madras High Court’s decision in S. Madan Kumar v. K. Arjunan (2006 SCC Online Mad 94), the Court held that a petitioner invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. must present all available pleas at the time of filing the petition, and a subsequent petition cannot be entertained if it is based on withheld arguments seeking the same relief. 25. However, in the present case, the previous criminal petition No. 6454/2012, filed by the petitioner, sought to quash the FIR and complaint against him for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and the entire proceedings in Cr. No. 56/2021 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru. The present petition was filed after withdrawing the previous one, now seeking to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings before the Sessions Court for offences punishable under Section 304(II) IPC. 26. In Anbazhagan vs. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3660, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the essential ingredients - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 for attracting the provisions of Section 304 IPC and, in para 60 sub-para 12, held: “60. Some important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus: (12) In determining whether an accused had guilty intention or knowledge in a case where only a single injury was inflicted and that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, factors such as the absence of premeditation, a sudden fight or quarrel, or circumstances suggesting the injury was accidental or unintentional may indicate guilty knowledge, making the offence fall under Section 304 Part II IPC.” 26.1. The distinction between Part I and Part II of Section 304 IPC was discussed in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648: “To punish under Section 304 Part I, the prosecution must prove that the death was caused by the accused’s act with the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. For Section 304 Part II, the prosecution must prove that the accused knew that his act was likely to cause death.” 27. Furthermore, to establish guilt under Section 304 Part II IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused’s act or inflicted injuries resulted in the deceased’s death. Without evidence showing intent to cause death or inflict a fatal injury, neither Clause I nor Clause II of Section 304 IPC applies. 28. In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish that the injuries inflicted by the accused were sufficient to cause death. The post-mortem report and the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:13838 CRL.P No. 488 of 2022 doctor’s statement indicate that the deceased died of cardiac arrest due to coronary artery disease and had consumed alcohol before death. There is no chain of circumstances or essential ingredients required to prosecute the accused under Section 304(II) IPC. 29. Additionally, the prosecution did not establish that the accused’s actions directly caused the deceased’s death. There is no evidence or explanation to indicate that the injuries were severe enough to be fatal. Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER: (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceeding initiated against the accused in S.C No. 167/2021 pending before District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur is set aside. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 173