- 1 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100150 OF 2023 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RURAL POLICE STATION, BALLARI DISTRICT BALLARI THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.) AND: NEELAKANTAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O: GUGGARAHATTI, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378(1) & 378(3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.37/2016 & TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN S.C. NO.37 OF 2016 & ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in Sessions Case No.37 of 2016 dated 02nd August 2021 [for short, “the Sessions Court”]. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Sessions Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the Sub Inspector of Police Rural Police Station, Ballari submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “IPC”]. It is alleged that on 13.12.2015 at about 2.00O clock in the early morning, when Smt. Venkamma / deceased was asleep at her house, the accused / husband assaulted her with an axe on her forehead and in furtherance, strangulated her with a nylon rope, with an intention to murder her and - 3 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 4. The alleged background to the incident is that, the accused and deceased were married for more than 10 years and out of their wedlock, they had begotten two children. In due course, the accused became a chronic alcoholic and was not doing any job and did not having a consistent source of income. That apart, the accused used to inflict cruelty, both physical and mental on his wife and was demanding money from her to buy liquor, as Venkamma was having decent earning by doing vegetable vending business. However, on the fatal day, it is said that Venkamma had denied the accused any money, and therefore, being irked, the accused had committed murder of his wife. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused for the alleged commission of offences and case was registered in C.C. No.184/2016. - 4 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was registered in S.C. No.37/2016. The accused was in judicial custody and he was produced before the Sessions Judge. As the accused was unable to engage an Advocate on his choice to defend himself, he was assisted with an Advocate from the Legal Services Authority. After hearing, charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has totally examined 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17, got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P16 and nine material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. - 5 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Sessions Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 8. The learned Additional S.P.P. Sri. M.B.Gundawade would submit that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court is contrary to law, facts and the evidence on record. Hence, the same are not sustainable in the eye of law. Though the prosecution has examined the witnesses especially the evidences of PWs.1, 5, 6 and 9, who have supported the case of the prosecution and having deposed with regard to the ill-treatment given and harassing deceased for money to buy alcohol and having witnessed with regard to the quarrel with his wife and assaulting mercilessly, since the accused was unemployed and the deceased Venkamma was leading her life by doing vegetable vending business to meet out her livelihood. In spite of the above said evidences, the Sessions Court has committed an error in disbelieving the evidences and has passed an order of - 6 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 acquittal which is totally erroneous and the same requires interference of this Court. 9. Further the learned Additional SPP would submit that the Sessions Court has committed an error in not considering the evidence of the independent witnesses especially PW8, who has specifically deposed regarding the said incident which took place in the house of the accused and during the course of the evidence has specifically stated that, in view of non-opening of the door, witnesses forcefully broke opened the door, could see deceased Venkamma lying on the floor having sustained bleeding injury on her right forehead along with a nylon rope around her neck and saw that the accused was holding an axe in his hand and upon seeing the witnesses and his wife, the accused fled from the spot and said witnesses has narrated the fact with regarding to the quarrel and demanding of money for buying alcohol. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Sessions Court and has come to the conclusion that the evidence does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to - 7 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 believe the version and there is inconsistency in the prosecution theory and there are no material contradictions, and accordingly the Sessions Court committed an error in disbelieving the evidence and has acquitted the accused which requires interference by this Court. 10. Further he would submit that the Sessions Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused only on the ground that the prosecution has to necessarily prove every link in the chain of the events beyond reasonable doubt failing which the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and to be held that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are not consistent, but however the Sessions Court has not properly appreciated that PWs.10, 11, 12 and 13 and also 14 have supported the case of the prosecution and narrated the facts about the said incident and also stated about the accused and deceased frequently quarrelling with each other and accused was harassing his wife for money to buy alcohol and especially PW10, who is an independent witness has - 8 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 deposed with regard to recovery of the axe which has been used by the accused and the same has been seized at the instance of the accused which was hidden inside his house as per the Ex.P11 i.e., spot mahazar. Ignoring this aspect of the prosecution witness, the Session Court has committed an error in disbelieving the evidence and has acquitted the accused which requires to be set aside. 11. The Sessions Court has also not properly appreciated the medical evidence i.e., PW15, who is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem and also the Doctor’s opinion/report as per Exs.P12 and P13 stating that the death of the deceased might have been caused using the rope. The Sessions Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. On all these grounds, the learned Additional SPP sought for allowing the appeal. 12. As against this, the learned counsel for the accused would submit that the Sessions Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and absolutely there are no grounds to - 9 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of the materials placed before us, the following points that would arise for our consideration are; i. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from any legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede? ii. What order? 14. Our answer to the above points is as under: Point No.i – negative. Point No.ii – as per final order Regarding Point No.1: 15. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. - 10 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 16. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus: “23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:- “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of - 11 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 17. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under: “16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence - 12 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …” 18. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis- appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the - 13 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…” 19. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” - 14 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 20. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” 21. We have carefully re-examined the prosecution evidence and the materials on record. The prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The appellant has not disputed as to the homicidal death of the deceased. Now, the question before this Court is whether the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the - 15 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 accused and deceased were married for more than 10 years and out of their wedlock they have begotten two children and in due course the accused became a chronic alcoholic and was not doing any job and did not have consistent source of income. That apart the accused used to inflict cruelty on his wife, both physical and mental, and was demanding money from her to buy liquor, as Venkamma was having decent earning by doing vegetable vending business. However, on the fatal day, the deceased Venkamma had denied the any money to the accused, and therefore, being irked, the accused committed murder of his wife with axe on 13.12.2015 at about 2.00O clock in the early morning when Venkamma was asleep at her house. 22. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17. 16 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P16 and material objects as MOs.1 to 9. 23. CW1 [PW1] – Adiveppa Tippanna, the father of the deceased has deposed in his evidence that he got two - 16 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 sons and three daughters and his second daughter’s name is Venkamma. His daughter was given in marriage to the accused about 10 to 11 years back. Out of their wedlock they had got two children by name Jayendra and Trishamma. The accused was not doing any job / work and was in the habit of assaulting his wife and snatching her earning to buy liquor. His daughter had informed him about the harassment / cruelty inflicted by the accused. Pursuant to which villagers Bajjappa, Basavaraja, Manjunath and others had held a panchayat to advise the accused. On the advice of the panchayat, the accused and the deceased were shifted to Guggarahatti village and were residing there in a rented house/hut. Even at Guggarahatti village, the accused continued to ill-treat his daughter deceased Venkamma. After shifting to Guggarahatti village, Venkamma had started vegetable business to eke out livelihood. At Guggaratti also a panchayat (second one) was held, as the accused had continued to harass his daughter. Therefore, CW1 was - 17 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 constrained to take Venkamma’s children along with him to take care of them. 24. Further he has deposed that about one year three months back, the witness had received a phone call from Bajjappa that the accused had brutally assaulted his daughter and she was admitted to VIMS Hospital. The witness along with his wife and other relatives, rushed to VIMS Hospital, Ballari. Upon seeing her, he noticed that she had bleeding injury on her forehead and there was ligature mark on her neck. He learnt from the neighbors of his daughter viz., Honnurappa and his wife Yashodamma that, they both along with the accused had admitted Venkamma to VIMS Hospital. Upon seeing the body of his daughter, the witness could make out that she was murdered. Upon enquiry, he learnt from the neighbors that at about 2.00O clock in the early morning, the neighbours heard a loud noise / quarrel between the accused and the deceased and they rushed near their house and knocked the door. After sometime, the accused opened the door of their house and fled from the spot. The - 18 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 neighbours saw Venkamma lying on the floor in a critical condition and therefore, they shifted her to the Hospital and he identified his signature in the complaint lodged by him marked as EX.P1(a). Subsequently, the Police visited the crime spot and drew a spot mahazar to that effect as per Ex.P2. The witness also identified two pieces of nylon rope marked as MO1 and the blood stained cloth piece marked as MO2. 25. CW9 [PW2] – Shivarama, he has deposed in his evidence as to the mahazar Ex.P3. He has also deposed as to the seizure of saree, petticoat, jacket and blood stained bottle from the crime spot. He has identified the same as MOs.3 to 5. 26. CW2 [PW3] – Jayaraj and CW4 [PW4] – Parvathi, said to be attesters to the inquest mahazar witness. They have deposed as to the inquest mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P4. 27. CW5 [PW5] – Smt.Lakshmidevi Adiveppa, the mother of the deceased has deposed in her evidence that - 19 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 her daughter was given in marriage to the accused about 12 years ago and pursuant to their marriage for few months accused was taking good care of his wife. However, thereafter, he became a chronic alcoholic and was not doing any job. He was in a habit of harassing her daughter for money to buy to alcohol and was not taking care of the basic necessities of his family. Hence, a panchayat was held in that regard and the elders had advised the accused not to indulge in such activities. Despite advise, the accused continued to harass her daughter. Therefore, they were advised to shift to Guggarahatti village. Even at the said place, the accused continued to ill-treat her daughter. On the fatal day, she learnt that the accused had picked up a quarrel with his wife and had assaulted her mercilessly. Thereafter, the neighbours had shifted her to VIMS Hospital and after her daughter’s death, her husband PW1 had lodged a complaint to that effect. She had identified the photograph as Exs.P4 to P6 and also identified the MOs.3 to 5. The axe - 20 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 was confronted to the witness and upon identification, same was marked as MO6. 28. CW13 [PW6] – Bajjappa is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He has deposed that the deceased Venkamma was his niece and Lakshmidevi was his sister. The accused and the deceased were married for about 12 years and had two children. The accused was not engaged in any work and was an alcoholic. The accused was in the habit of harassing his niece for money. Therefore, he along with CWs.19 to 21 had held a panchayat and had advised the accused. Therefore, the accused and deceased had shifted from Singanahalli village to Guggarahatti village. Even after shifting, the accused continued to ill-treat his wife and continued to be an alcoholic. Therefore, Venkamma was constrained to start vegetable vending business to make out a livelihood. But, the accused was harassing her for money. Hence, the witness along with CWs.19 to 21 once again held a panchayath and had advised the accused. As the accused was not taking care of the family, Venkamma sent her two children to her - 21 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 parents' house. On 13.12.2015, the neighbors of Venkamma namely CWs.14 and 15 made a phone call to him informing that the accused had assaulted his wife and they were taking her to the hospital. Accordingly, he rushed to the hospital along with his sister and brother-in- law and by then the Doctors at VIMS Hospital had declared her dead. When they saw the dead body of the Venkamma in the hospital, they noticed that she had sustained bleeding injury on her forehead and ligature mark on her neck. Upon enquiring CWs.14 and 15 about the incident, they learnt that, at about 2.00O clock in the early morning they heard loud noise from the house of the accused and when they went there, they saw the deceased lying on the floor, but the accused responded that he was not aware of anything. They also saw the nylon rope entangled in the neck of Venkamma and a bleeding injury on her forehead. Thereafter, they shifted her to VIMS Hospital for treatment. CW1 had lodged the complaint against the accused alleging that the accused had assaulted his wife with an axe and further strangulated her with a nylon - 22 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 rope. Further he has deposed that he had given a statement before the police during the investigation. He identified as nylon rope and the axe as MOs.1 & 6 respectively. 29. CW7 [PW7] – K.Ramanjini said to be the attester to the mahazar, examined as PW7. He has deposed as to the spot mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P2 dated 13.12.2015 and also the seizure of MOs.1 and 2 on spot. He has also deposed that Police have prepared a sketch as per Ex.P7. 30. CW14 – Honnuraswamy, who is residing in a rented house by the side of the house of the deceased Venkamma, examined as PW8. He has deposed that accused and the deceased were residing in the lane adjoining their house. The accused and the deceased were in the habit of quarrelling with each other frequently, but he was not aware as to the exact reason for the same. The accused used to leave home in the morning and return home by 10.00O clock in the night. About five years ago on December 12th at about 10.00O clock in the night, accused - 23 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 and the deceased were engaged in the heated argument. At that juncture, he intervened, pacified them and suitably advised the accused. On the same night at about 2.00O clock, the witness heard a loud noise from the house of the accused. Therefore, he and his wife rushed to the house of the accused and started knocking the door. For sometime nobody opened the door. Therefore, he forcefully broke opened the door and could see Venkamma lying on the floor. She had sustained bleeding injury on her right forehead along with a nylon rope around her neck and her condition was very critical. The accused was holding an axe in his hand and upon seeing the witness and his wife, the accused fled from the spot. Further he has deposed that he left his wife at the spot to nurse her and he proceeded to inform CW16 – Saraswathi (maternal aunt of the deceased) about the incident and to get her to the spot. Thereafter, all of them shifted Venkamma to VIMS Hospital for treatment. However, the doctors at VIMS Hospital declared her as brought dead. The witness deposed that the accused had demanded the money from - 24 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 the deceased to buy alcohol. He identified the photos of the deceased marked as Ex.P5 and MOs.1 to 5. 31. CW16 [PW9] – Saraswathi, the maternal aunt of the deceased and is cited by the prosecution to be a circumstantial witness. She has deposed in her evidence that she was resident of Guggarahatti village of Ballari District. The accused and the deceased were residents of same lane where the witness was residing. The accused and the deceased were frequently quarreling with each other. About five years ago on December 12th at about 10.00O clock in the night, the accused and the deceased were engaged in a heated argument and at that juncture the witness and CW14 had intervened and pacified them. On the same night at about 2.00O clock, PW8 – Honnuraswamy came to her house and informed her that Venkamma was injured and had fallen in her house. She along with Honnuraswamy rushed to the spot and could notice that Venkamma had sustained bleeding injury on her forehead and a nylon rope was found across her neck. Her condition was critical and she was unable to speak. - 25 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 Thereafter, they shifted her to VIMS Hospital, where she was declared as brought dead. She learnt that the accused had assaulted his wife Venkamma as she has refused to give him money. 32. CW12 [PW10] – Nagabhushan, said to be the attester to the seizure mahazar. He has deposed as to seizure panchanama Ex.P11. Further he has deposed that at the time of conducting seizure panchanama he was present and had produced axe MO6. At that time, the photo was snapped and the same was marked as MO7. 33. CW18 [PW11] – Nagendra, the auto driver, examined as PW11. He has deposed in his evidence that he had shifted Venkamma to the hospital. At that time he noticed that Venkamma had sustained bleeding injuries on her head. CW16 and others were present at VIMS Hospital and Venkamma was declared dead. Her body was kept at mortuary. He learnt that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting her. - 26 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 34. CW24 [PW12] – Venkatesha and CW25 [PW13] – Dyamamma are the circumstantial witnesses, who have deposed in their evidence that the accused and the deceased were frequently quarreling with each other and accused was harassing his wife for money to buy alcohol. About two years ago, these witnesses had intervened to pacify them when they both were engaged in a quarrel. They learnt that the accused had murdered the deceased by assaulting her. 35. CW26 [PW14] – Pratap Reddy, the owner of the hut, has deposed that the accused and deceased were residing in the hut on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. Venkamma committed suicide in the hut and further he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 36. CW34 [PW5] – Dr. Yuvaraj. He had deposed in his evidence that he had conducted the postmortem of deceased Venkamma and issuance of postmortem report Ex.P12 and also the opinion as per Ex.P13. - 27 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 37. CW35 [PW16] – Hosakerappa, the Police Inspector. He has deposed in his evidence that on 13.12.2015 at about 11:00 a.m. he had received the complaint from CW1 as per Ex.P1. On that basis he had registered a case and submitted the FIR to the Court as per Ex.P14 and entrusted the case to CW36 for further investigation. 38. CW36 [PW17] – Pratap Gokule, Police Inspector. He has deposed in his evidence as to the investigation conducted by him and also filing of charge sheet against the accused. 39. With regard to the offence under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, PW1 – Adiveppa, the complainant, father of the deceased, has stated that the accused was not doing any work and was in the habit of assaulting his wife and snatching her earning to buy liquor. In this regard, a panchayat was also held. PW5 – Lakshmidevi the mother of the deceased has also deposed on the same lines. PW6 – Bajjappa, the brother-in-law of the deceased has also deposed as to the alleged assault made by the - 28 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 accused. PW8–Honnuraswamy, PW9–Saraswathi, PW12– Venkatesha, PW13–Dyamamma were residing in the same area where the accused and his wife were residing. They have deposed that the accused and his wife often quarrelling with each other. All these witnesses have not disclosed on which date the accused had assaulted the deceased prior to this incident. The prosecution has not placed any materials to show that on which date the panchayat was held as to the assault made by the accused to the deceased. The name of the panchayatdar is also not disclosed in Ex.P1. PW6 – Bajjappa has also not disclosed as to the date of panchayat conducted by them. Apart from this, there is no complaint lodged by the deceased or by her parents prior to the incident alleging cruelty or otherwise against the accused. PW1 in his cross- examination admitted that children of the accused had instituted a partition suit in Ananthapura Court and that case is still pending. He has also admitted in his cross- examination that the accused and deceased frequently visited their house and the accused was doing coolie work - 29 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 but he has denied that he was working as hamali in APMC. Therefore, if really the relationship between the husband and wife or between the witness or the accused was not cordial, no prudent person would visit their house and also PWs.1 and 5, the parents of the deceased are hearsay witnesses to which testimony, no credence can be given. PW5, the mother of the deceased in her cross-examination admitted that civil suit was not filed against the accused. However, PW1- husband of PW5, admitted about the institution of the suit. PWs.8 and 9 in their evidence have categorically admitted that accused was earning money by doing coolie work at APMC yard. 40. PW4 in her cross-examination admitted that Venkamma was telling her that she was leading a happy marital life. Admittedly, the accused has owned some properties in his name. The civil suit is also pending but the copy of the plaint and stage of the case proceedings has not been produced before the Court. When the accused had property in his name, if really he had addicted to alcohol, he would have sold the said property - 30 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 to the extent of his share, but he has not done so. If the accused had deserted and neglected the deceased, she would have filed a petition for maintenance against the accused. The owner who has rented the hut to the accused and the deceased, PW14–Pratap Reddy, have not whispered anything as to the alleged ill-treatment meted out by the accused to the deceased. 41. On re-appreciation of all these aspects, the Sessions Court has held that there is no cogent, clinching or corroborative evidence to punish the accused under Section 498A of IPC. Accordingly, the Sessions Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Even on re-appreciation / re- examination of the entire evidence on record, we do not find any error or illegality/infirmity in the finding given by the Sessions Court. 42. With regard to the offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused with prior vengeance, had premeditation to - 31 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 murder his wife and therefore, when she was asleep, he first assaulted her with an Axe. However, since the attempt did not materialize and with an apprehension that she may scream and make noise, the accused got a nylon rope and strangulated her and thereby committed her murder. 43. It is a fact that there are no eye witnesses to the incident per se. Nevertheless, prosecution has canvassed the theory of last seen through the witnesses namely Honnuraswamy and Saraswathi, although Saraswathi was not a direct witness to the last seen theory. In essence, it is the evidence of Honnuraswamy alone to be appreciated regarding the last seen theory. 44. As per the prosecution, the alleged motive for the accused to commit the murder was that he was not engaged in any work and was not earning and was in a habit of consuming alcohol every day. Hence, he used to pester his wife for money to buy alcohol, as she was earning by doing vegetable vending business. In this regard, the parents of the deceased namely PWs.1 and 5 - 32 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 and maternal uncle namely PW6 have deposed that the accused was not doing any work and was not earning money. However, on the contrary PWs.8 and 9 who are none other than the maternal uncle and aunt of the deceased, in their cross-examination have categorically admitted that the accused was doing coolie work at APMC Yard and earning money. Further, there was no case or even a NCR registered against the accused prior to the incident. Therefore, there is no clinching evidence emanating from the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged motive. No doubt, PWs.8 & 9 along with PWs.12 & 13 have supported the prosecution regarding the quarrel that took place on 12.12.2015 at about 10.00O clock in the night. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the said quarrel in fact took place, it cannot be construed at any stretch of imagination that any prudent person would go to an extent of murdering his own wife being married for a long duration about 10-12 years for a trivial reason that she refused to give him money. - 33 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 45. As per the prosecution theory, the accused has used the nylon rope to strangulate his wife. If that was a fact, there was no impediment for the Investigating Officer to get the opinion of a fingerprint expert as to the rope which was seized from the crime spot at the earliest possible time. However, there is no such evidence to that effect. Most importantly, the prosecution has not let in any evidence to show that the accused and the deceased only were present in the house when the alleged incident took place. 46. The material witness CW12–Nagaveni, has given up by the prosecution as per order dated 11.01.2021 without assigning any reason. 47. PW8-Honnurswamy has deposed in his evidence that on 12th December at 10:00 p.m., the accused and his wife were quarrelling with each other in front of their house. He advised them not to quarrel. Then the accused and his wife went inside the house and he went to the house. At 02:00 p.m., he heard the sound from the house of the accused. Then he went there along with his wife - 34 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 and knocked the doors. Accused did not open the door and then he forcefully broke-open the door and so that Smt. Venkamma was lying on the floor with injuries on the right side of her forehead. The nylon rope was in her neck. She was in a critical condition. Accused was holding axe. On seeing them, accused fled the spot. Then he went and brought CW16 and shifted Venkamma to VIMS Hospital where the Doctor declared brought dead. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested that Venkamma sustained loss in chit business and she in the act of committing suicide she had a fall and received injuries on her forehead. During the course of cross- examination of PW9–Saraswati, she has clearly admitted that Venkamma sustained loss in chit business and the members of the chit business were asking Venkamma to return their money. PW1–Adiveppa has deposed that the neighbours told about the incident at about 02:00 a.m. and there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife in loud voice and door of the accused was locked from inside. On repeated knocking, the accused opened the - 35 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 door of his house and ran away from the spot. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that he has received information through Honnuraswamy and Nagaveni. During the cross-examination, it was suggested that the deceased was doing chit business but she answered that she do not know this fact. But she has clearly admitted that oftenly his daughter asking loan from him and he did not lend money. 48. The contents of Ex.P11 reveals that the accused given blow to the accused on her forehead from the backside of the axe and accused threw the axe towards backside of the house. This axe seized by the Police under Mahazar Ex.P11 at the instance of the accused. The Police have conducted mahazar Ex.P11 on 26.12.2015. Ex.P2 is spot panchanama conducted by the Police on 30.12.2015. This Ex.P2 does not reveal as to the weapon used by the accused. But it is stated that the accused assaulted with one weapon but the name of the said weapon is not disclosed. The spot panchanama also consist boundaries of the alleged incident. - 36 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 49. The Investigating Officer has not observed the surrounding area of crime as required under Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure and only after the arrest of the accused and after recording voluntary statement, the Investigating Officer has seized this axe under Ex.P13 which create doubt about the act of the accused. 50. Additionally, in column No.7 of the inquest panchanama–Ex.P4, it is stated that Honnuraswamy and others had shifted the deceased Venkamma to the hospital. The postmortem report–Ex.P12 reveals that there was laceration wound on forehead i.e., 1 X 2 cm. Ex.P5- photo of the deceased also reveals the same. Ex.P7-rough sketch reveals that Honnurswamy’s house is adjacent to the house where the alleged incident took place. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Honnuraswamy who is said to be the eyewitness and he has not whispered anything as to the holding of axe by the accused when he witnessed the accused at the relevant point of time. Only for the first time before the Court, after a lapse of about seven years from the date of - 37 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 incident, PW8–Honnuraswamy has deposed that the accused was holding axe in his hand and on seeing them, the accused fled the spot. If really the accused had an intention to kill Venkamma, he would have assaulted her with the blade of axe. But, the case of the prosecution is that the accused has given blow to the deceased on her forehead from the backside of the axe and caused lacerated wound. If the accused has assaulted the deceased with the axe blade and strangulated the deceased with nylon rope with an intention to kill her, he would not have screamed or cried loudly or would not have opened the door when Honnuraswamy repeatedly knocked the door. But it is the case of the prosecution that on hearing the loud cry from the house of the accused, PW8 and his wife came to the house of the accused and after repeatedly knocking the door the accused opened the door and fled the spot, and the body of the deceased was lying on the ground and then they shifted the deceased to the hospital. - 38 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 51. The Investigating Officer seized nylon ropes alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence. These ropes were marked as Material Object No.1 (MO1). According to Ex.P2 – the spot mahazar, there were two separate pieces of green nylon rope recovered from the scene: one measuring approximately seven feet and the other about eighteen feet in length. However, the prosecution has failed to provide any explanation as to how the rope came to be in two separate pieces. If, as the prosecution claims, the accused used the rope to strangulate the deceased, a single rope of seven feet would have been sufficient to commit such an act. The presence of two pieces raises critical questions. The prosecution has not clarified whether the rope was intentionally cut before, during, or after the alleged act, nor is there any forensic or testimonial evidence to explain the division of the rope. This unexplained circumstance undermines the consistency of the prosecution’s narrative and introduces doubt regarding the actual use and condition of the nylon rope at the time of the incident. - 39 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 52. Further, scrutiny of the timing and manner in which the investigative documents were submitted to the Court reveals procedural lapses. Ex.P2 – the spot mahazar and Ex.P3 – the seizure mahazar dated 13.12.2015, along with Ex.P11 – another spot mahazar conducted at the instance of the accused on 26.12.2015 between 01:05 p.m. and 02:20 p.m., were all submitted to the Court only on 14.01.2016. There is no explanation provided by the prosecution for the significant delay of over a month in presenting these vital documents before the Court. Prompt submission of such mahazars is critical, as delays can give rise to suspicion regarding their authenticity and tampering. The lack of timely submission significantly affects the evidentiary value of these documents and suggests possible procedural irregularities during the course of investigation. 53. The Property Forms further corroborate this delay. Property Form Nos.395/15 and 396/15, both dated 13.12.2015, and Property Form No. 408/2015, dated 26.12.2015, all show that the reporting of the seized - 40 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 articles was made only on 14.01.2016. This unexplained delay in forwarding the property forms to the Court is a clear deviation from the mandate of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which requires prompt and proper documentation and reporting of seized property. The failure to adhere to this statutory requirement not only raises serious questions about the integrity of the evidence but also casts doubt on the genuineness and reliability of the said mahazars and property forms. 54. In light of the overall evidence on record, a reasonable doubt emerges regarding the role of the accused in the alleged act. A plausible alternative scenario that arises from the defence narrative is that the deceased may have died by suicide. It appears that the accused, upon discovering his wife hanging by a nylon rope, may have panicked and used an axe to cut the rope in a desperate attempt to rescue her. As a result of the rope being severed, the deceased would have fallen to the ground, possibly sustaining a lacerated injury on her - 41 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 forehead due to the impact. The accused, in a state of shock, reportedly shouted for help, which likely drew the attention of the neighbour, Honnuraswamy, who then arrived at the scene. During cross-examination, it was also elicited that the deceased had suffered a financial setback in a chit fund transaction and was under intense pressure from other members demanding repayment. Inability to repay the money could have caused severe mental distress, potentially driving her to take her own life. This line of defence was also put to the prosecution witnesses, including PW14 – Pratap Reddy, the owner of the house , who stated unequivocally that the deceased had committed suicide. 55. Considering the numerous material contradictions, omissions, and improvements in the prosecution’s case, coupled with the absence of cogent, convincing, and corroborative evidence, the Sessions Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of - 42 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 the doubt, therefore, was justifiably extended to the accused, resulting in his acquittal. 56. Upon re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire body of evidence, both oral and documentary, it becomes evident that the prosecution has not established its case with the required degree of certainty. The evidence on record gives rise to substantial and reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s involvement in the alleged offence. Consequently, we find no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Sessions Court. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: 57. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R [i] Appeal is dismissed. [ii] The judgment and order of acquittal dated 02nd August 2021 passed in SC No.37 of - 43 - CRL.A No.100150/2023 2016 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari is confirmed; [iii] Registry to transmit the trial court records along with copy of this judgment to the concerned Court. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE Rsh / CT-CMU