- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1658/2018 (C) BETWEEN: PANIYERAVARA MANI S/O LATE KAVALA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, COOLIE R/AT IN LINE HOUSE OF PALANGADA SARASWATHI KADANGA MARUR VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218 …APPELLANT (BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY CPI, VIRAJPET CIRCLE REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 10.07.2018 AND SENTENCE DATED 26.07.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET IN S.C.NO.5035/2017 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, accused in S.C.No.5035/2017 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu- Madikeri sitting at Virajpet has preferred this appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, Trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the charge of commission of murder of his spouse Muthi in his house. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before trial Court. 3. The charge against accused was he had live-in relationship with victim Muthi since 10 years and both of them were working in the estate of PWs.4 and 7. They were living in the line house provided by their employer in their coffee estate. The accused insisted the victim to seek a share in her father's property, which she declined. Therefore, on 02.09.2017 at 11.00 p.m. he picked up quarrel with her, assaulted her with the Iron rod/MO.1 and committed her murder. Then he caused her burn injuries using the same rod. 4. Heard both side. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 Submissions of Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused: 5(i). There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case was solely based on circumstantial evidence. The evidence on record shows that both accused and victim were in the habit of consuming alcohol. Under intoxication, victim herself either had a fall and suffered injuries or had self inflicted such injuries. The trial Court convicted accused based on the extrajudicial confession made before PW.4 for which corroboration was sought by the evidence of PWs.7, 9 and 15. The said extrajudicial confession was allegedly made by accused calling PW.4 using the phone of PW.15. The said phone was standing in the name of PW.15. Though, the call details records were produced, the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘Evidence Act’ for short) was not produced. (ii) PWs.9 and 15 being neighbours, no such confession was made before them. They did not support the said theory. The trial Court relied on the circumstance of motive. The motive alleged was that accused was demanding share in the parental property of victim and that was not given, but PW.16 the brother of victim himself states that they had agreed to give the share. Therefore, there was no question of accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 assaulting victim for the sake of share of victim in the properties. (iii) The other circumstance relied was the seizure of MO.1 at the instance of accused on the basis of his voluntary statement, under the Ex.P6/mahazar. Panch witnesses/PWs.5 and 6 did not support said seizure. Thereby, the chain of circumstance was not proved by cogent and consistent evidence. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. Submissions of Smt.Sowmya R, learned HCGP for the respondent: 6(i). The fact that accused and deceased were living together in the house where death took place was not disputed. The evidence of PWs.1, 4, 7 to 9, 15 and 16 show that accused and deceased were living together and after victim was found dead with homicidal injuries, the accused was found absconding. That conduct of accused was not explained. Death being homicidal was proved by evidence of PW.13/the doctor who conducted post mortem examination and by the evidence of PWs.4 and 7/the mother and son before whom extrajudicial confession was made by the accused and the complaint was filed by the complainant who had no animosity against the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 accused. Even if the certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was not produced, the fact of accused calling PW.4 and informing him about the incident was proved by the evidence of PWs.4, 7, 9 and 15. The evidence of PW.16 itself shows that accused had demanded share in the parental property of victim. Though PW.16 says that they had agreed to give share, according to the prosecution, victim was not agreeable for that. Therefore, accused committed her murder. Such evidence of PW.16 proves motive of the accused. (ii) PWs.5 and 6 though did not fully support the proceedings under Ex.P6/mahazar regarding seizure of the weapon, in the chief-examination, they have admitted their presence when the photograph was taken during those mahazar proceedings. PW.5 admitted production of the weapon by accused before the police. That evidence was corroborated by the evidence of Investigating Officer/PW.17. Therefore, trial Court was justified in holding that said circumstance is proved. The accused failed to explain how victim who was residing with him suffered such injuries. Therefore, trial Court was justified in drawing adverse inference against him for such non- explanation. The impugned judgment and order of conviction is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 based on sound evaluation of evidence and applicable law. The same does not warrant interference of this Court. 7. On hearing submissions of both side and on examination of materials on record, the question that arises for consideration of the Court is "Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable?" Analysis 8. Some of the admitted facts of the case are as follows: The victim was married to one Annu and she had 2 sons and 1 daughter in the said marriage. Herself and her children were living with her parents in Devarapura village. About 4 years prior to the incident when accused was working in Devarapura Village, he enticed the victim. Then they came down to Kadanga Maruru Village, Virajpete Taluk. PW.7 is the mother of PW.4. The accused and victim were employed in the estate of PWs.4 and 7 situated in Kadanga, Maruru village. They were accommodated in the line house belonging to PWs.4 and 7 in their estate. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 9. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) Victim’s father had 2 acres of land. Accused was insisting her to get share in the property of her father. Victim was declining his demand. In that regard, on 02.09.2017 at 11.00 p.m. accused picked up quarrel with victim, assaulted her with iron rod/MO.1 on her head and other parts of the body and committed her murder. After her death, using the hot rod he inflicted burn injuries on her body. On next day morning, he went to the house of PWs.9 and 15. On his request PW.15 gave him phone to facilitate him to call PW.4/his employer. Over the phone he informed PW.4 about commission of murder of victim/Muthi. (ii) PW.4 came to the house of PW.7 and informed her about the incident. Then both of them went to Virajpet Rural Police Station and PW.7 filed complaint as per Ex.P11 before PW.14/ASI of Virajpet Police Station. Based on Ex.P11 he registered FIR as per Ex.P21 against accused and then handed over further investigation to PW.17. 10. PW.7 deposed that on learning about the incident he came to the house and informed PW.4 and both of them went to the police station and filed the complaint. PW.17/Circle - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 Police Inspector of Virajpet Police Circle visited the scene of offence, conducted spot mahazar, inquest mahazar, subjected dead body for post mortem examination. He seized the clothes of deceased, sample mud from the scene of offence. CW.20 who was deputed for apprehending the accused, apprehended and produced him before PW.17 on 04.09.2017. Based on the voluntary statement of the accused, PW.17 seized the weapon of offence which was produced by accused under the mahazar at Ex.P6. He recorded the statements of witnesses subjected the seized articles to FSL examination and on completing the investigation, filed charge sheet. 11. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution in support of the charges relied on the following circumstances: (i) That death had taken place when accused and deceased were staying together and it was a homicidal death. (ii) Motive for murder i.e. demand of accused for share of the victim in her father's property. (iii) Extra judicial confession of the accused before PWs.4, 9 and 15. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 (iv) Seizure of weapon of offence at the instance of accused. (v) Seizure of blood stained clothes of accused and deceased. (vi) Medical evidence and scientific evidence. 12. The fact of accused and deceased living together in the line house belonging to PWs.4 and 7 was spoken to by PWs.1, 4, 7 to 9, 15 and 16. The accused did not dispute the same and the fact of he enticing victim who was already married and having 3 children and coming down to the estate of PWs.4 and 7 and living in the said house with victim. He also did not dispute that victim died an unnatural death in the same house. 13. The evidence of PW.13/doctor who conducted the postmortem examination shows that the victim had suffered following injuries: "1. Laceration on lower of lip left side 1/2cm X 1/2 cm X 1/2 cm on the lower dentition partially visible. 2. Multiple abrasions /lacerations/ burn marks- singing (§gÉ J¼ÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ) marks with resulting colour changes. They were listed from head to toe. 1) Abrasion over Pinner of left ear along the earlobe's curvature and extending just beneath the pinna 2cm length: max width 1/2 cm. bleed from this - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 wound seen trickles on to ear canal. However there is no bleed from inside. 2) Injury behind left ear which looks like abrasion but an feeling/touch is a penetrating injury 14mm X 8mm X depth (probe)18mm. 3) Another penetrating injury 10mm X 6mm X 12mm depth just below injury no.2 4) Laceration over chin 1cm X 1/2 cmX 1/2 cm depth left to midline. 5) Laceration over lower lip, left side 1/2cm X 1/2cm X 1/2cm. 6) A large burn mark over forehead 8cmX2 1/2 cm width with loss of superficial skin areas (resembling a large kajal smeared look) with reddish black colour. 7) Right jaw 2 curvilinear burn/signed marks 3mm widthX5cm length, 3mmX4cm length one below another. 8) 7 (seven) curvilinear singing/burn marks over left jaw width varies from 3mm to 5mm, length from 2cmX5cm, these marks are seen criss-crossing each other. 9) 3 curvilinear burn marks /singing on right side of neck 3mm to 5mm width; 2cm to 4cm length. 10) Similar crisscross burn marks/singing seen 30 number from right shoulder to elbow. 11) Left arm/shoulder shows 3 crisscross burn marks 12) The trunk shows a total of 35 singing marks; length 2cm to 5cm width 3mm to 6mm. 13) Back shows 29 crisscross singing marks 14) Right lower limb shows 20 crisscross singing marks 15) Left lower limb shows 16 crisscross singing marks - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 On internal examination following injuries were found. Cranium, and Spinal cannel: 1) Skull and Vertebra: Peeling simple imprisonment for of skin from scalp Hemotama seen on both temporoparitaro are the left side is large than right. 2) Membranes were intact. 3) Brain and Spinal cord: On removal of membrane Hemorrhages are observed on both lobs of cerebrum starting from frontal extending on to temporal and to midline. The bleed on right side is more than left side. Internal examination on Thorax was normal: 1. The stomach contained about 100 ml of Gruel like semi solid yellowish material. Internal examination of Geneto Urinary organ was normal. " 14. According to PW.13, the death was due to head injury leading to intra-cerebral bleed. He also deposed that burn injuries found on the dead body were postmortem injuries. He also deposed that weapon/MO.1 was referred to him for his opinion and on examining the same he opined that the blunt injuries found on victim could be caused by MO.1. He opined that head injury found on victim could be caused if victim is forcibly assaulted, pushed and hit with hard objects such as wall or floor. He found that injury Nos.2 and 3 penetrating injuries could be caused by weapon MO.1. In the cross-examination of PW.13 an attempt was made to suggest that victim suffered such injuries under intoxication and they - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 could be self inflicted injuries. PW.13 denied such theory. He clearly stated that he collected the stomach contents and it indicated that she had her meal 4 to 6 hours prior to the death. He deposed that there was no evidence of liquor contents in the stomach of the deceased. The theory of accused regarding the cause of death was not consistent. To some witnesses he suggested that they were self inflicted injuries under intoxication. Nature of the injuries found in Ex.P18/post mortem report and Ex.P1/inquest mahazar ruled out the possibility of injuries being self inflicted or accidental. Therefore, trial Court was justified in holding that the death was homicidal one. 15. So far as extrajudicial confession made before PW.4/the employer of accused and deceased, he deposed that on the day of incident on 03.09.2017 at 5.30 a.m. when he was in his house in Ammatti, accused called him using the phone of PW.15 and told him that during the previous night there was quarrel between him and deceased about the parental property of Muthi and he assaulted her and in the morning when he tried to wake her up he found her dead. It is further case of prosecution that after accused finding victim dead, he went to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 the house of PWs.9 and 15 who are the couple and his neighbours asked them to give their phone to call PW.4. Further he revealed to them about he committing murder of Muthi on previous night by assaulting her. 16. PWs.9 and 15 though supported the prosecution case regarding accused going to their house on the next day of incident, asking them to facilitate call to PW.4 through the phone of PW.15 and they accommodating him to make a call. They did not support extrajudicial confession made by accused before them. However, PW.4 categorically deposed about extrajudicial confession made by accused before him using the phone of PW.15. 17. To challenge extrajudicial confession made before PW.4, it was vehemently contended that CDRs-Exs.P28 and 29 though were not supported by required certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, accused can rely on the same. It was further contended that those CDRs show that there was not a single phone call between PW.4 and the caller on the phone of PW.15, apart from phone calls relied by the prosecution there were multiple others calls made to Dental College, Virajpet from the phone of PW.4, therefore, the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 contention that accused made an extrajudicial confession by making a single call to PW.4 should be disbelieved. 18. The fact that PWs.9 and 15 were the neighbours of accused and victim was not disputed by the accused. PWs.9 and 15 consistently deposed that on 03.09.2017 at 5.30 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. accused came to their house and requested them to help him to contact his employer/PW.7 on the phone of PW.15 saying that his wife is ill and that information has to be conveyed. They deposed that since they could not connect the call to PW.7 they called her son/PW.4 and after call was connected he handed over the phone to accused. But they claim that they did not hear the conversation between accused and PW.4. 19. The evidence of PWs.4, 7, 9 and 15 shows that they came to the scene of offence at around 7.30 a.m. and they found victim dead with homicidal injuries. Then PWs.4 and 7 went to the police station. PW.7 filed complaint/Ex.P11 on the same day at 10.30 a.m. The FIR/Ex.P21 shows that the same was registered on 03.9.2017 at 10.30 a.m. The evidence of aforesaid witnesses further shows that by the time they came to the scene of offence, accused had left the said place. If at all - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 there was no information to PW.4 they could not have come to the scene of offence. Absolutely nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.4 and 7 to show that they had any animosity against accused or they had any motive for false implication. 20. Course of events show that on accused making such extrajudicial confession before PW.4 and he inturn informed the same to PW.7, then both them came to the scene of offence and filed the complaint. According to the prosecution accused had absconded, he was apprehended on 04.09.2017 and produced before the Investigating Officer/PW17. On interrogation of accused apart from confessing about the crime, gave voluntary statement as per Ex.P25 to show the place where he had concealed MO.1/ the weapon of offence. Then he led police and panchas/PWs.5 and 6 to the line house and took out MO1 which was concealed on the wall in the bath room of the house and produced the same. Then Investigating Officer seized the same drawing the mahazar Ex.P6 in the presence of PWs5 and 6. 21. PWs.5 and 6 in the chief examination did not support the proceedings under Ex.P6-mahazar. But when PW.6 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 was confronted with Ex.P9/the photographs which were taken during the proceedings under Ex.P6, admitted the said photographs. He also admitted his signatures on Ex.P6 in the chief examination itself, but he had tried to say that nothing was seized in his presence and signatures were taken. However in the cross-examination he admitted that accused produced MO1 taking out the same from the wall of the bath room. PW.6 in his chief-examination admitted his signatures on Ex.P6, but he said that police took his signatures near Kadanga Maruru village. By the evidence of PW.5, it becomes clear that the accused had taken him and Investigating Officer to his house and produced MO.1. Further the evidence of PW.13/the doctor corroborates the contention that the victim could have been assaulted with weapon like MO.1. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.17/Investigating Officer could be relied regarding the seizure mahazar. 22. The accused did not offer any explanation as to how the victim suffered such huge number of injuries, though himself and the victim were living together. Further, the evidence of PWs.4, 7, 9 and 15, even mahazar witnesses/PWs.5 and 6 and PW.16 the brother of the victim - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 shows that the accused soon after the incident absconded. If the injuries were either accidental or self-inflicted, in the natural course of events, he should have attended to the victim or informed the police about unnatural death for which he has no explanation. He has not offered any explanation for escaping from the scene of offence. Therefore, such conduct of the accused was rightly found relevant by the trial Court. In that regard, the trial Court, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheikh Abdul Hamid v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 has rightly held that such circumstances incriminates against the accused. 23. The clothes of the deceased were collected by the Investigating Officer and the clothes of the accused were collected when he was produced before the Investigating Officer in the police station. The clothes of the accused, deceased and the weapon were sent for chemical examination. FSL report/Ex.P31 shows that on those articles the blood stains belonging to ‘AB’ group was found. That circumstance was also not explained by the accused. He did not explain how his 1 AIR 1998 SC 942 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37637-DB CRL.A No.1658/2018 clothes were stained with blood. The trial Court rightly considered the said circumstance also. 24. On overall evaluation of the evidence, it can be concluded that though the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was successful in establishing the circumstances relied on by it by cogent and consistent evidence. The trial Court on judicious appreciation of the aforesaid evidence has convicted and sentenced the accused. The appeal deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Counsel is placed on record. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU,KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14