- 1 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF, MARCH 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100193 OF 2023 (C) BETWEEN: PREMA @ CHAITRA W/O. PRASHURM HULAKOTI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: 3RD CROSS, NAVA AYODHYA NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANURADHA DESHPADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. THROUGH HAVERI WOMEN POLICE STATION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND IN SC NO. 94/2019 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 29.03.2021 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 31.03.2021 OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE WITH A FILE OF RS.5,000/- AGAINST THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 302 OF IPC PASSED BY V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN SC. NO.94/2019 AND AN ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT THEREBY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.03.22 15:56:58 +0530 - 2 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 07.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31st March 2021 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge Dharwad sitting at Hubballi (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in SC No.94 of 2019. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to with their rank and status before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are that the Police Inspector attached to Old Hubballi Police Station submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian penal code. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 11th December 2018 around 2.00 pm, PW1 gave a complaint to Hubballi Police Station. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant, his wife (accused), his mother and his two minor children are - 3 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 residing in a rental house at 3rd Cross, Nava Ayodhya Nagar, Old Hubballi. By profession he is a Mason and his mother works in a chilly pounding shop. The accused was working in Cloth Shop for some time back and later was working as an Attender in the Hospital. It is also stated in the complaint that the accused, being the wife of the complainant, was allegedly involved in relationship with multiple men and had illicit affairs. She used to return home late from work, which made the husband-complainant and the mother-in-law asking her to quit the job so that she would not go elsewhere and be at home. Accordingly, she quit the job and since then she is at home as house-wife. Due to this and also wanting to continue her illicit relationship with her paramour, the accused decided to commit murder of her children, so that it would make easier for her to leave the house and elope with one of her boyfriends with whom she was having illicit relationship. With this thought in her mind, she strangulated her two children, viz. Rohit aged 6 years and Rohini aged 4 years by using ID card band and veil and committed murder. Thus, accused committed the offence punishable intersection 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on 12th December 2018 and was remanded to judicial custody. Since then, the accused is in judicial custody. - 4 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge- sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and after the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence, case was registered in CC No.793 of 2019 and after committal of the case to Sessions Court, case came to be registered SC.No.94 of 2019. On hearing arguments on charges, learned Sessions Judge has framed charges against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, eight witnesses have been examined as PWs1 to 8; 24 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to 24; and 12 material objects were marked as MOs1 to 12. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but she has submitted that she has not committed the murder of her children and she was not present at the time of the death of her children as she was away for her work. Her mother-in-law Gowramma might have committed the murder of her children with an intention to get his son married with another girl. However, she has not adduced any - 5 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 defence evidence on her behalf. Having heard the parties, the trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the Appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant: 5. Smt. Anuradha Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is purely mechanical and without ascertaining the facts and without examining all the relevant aspects and practical position of law, the same is contrary to law, facts, evidence, probabilities and circumstances of the case and is liable to be set aside. She submitted that the trial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact allegedly disclosed in the evidence of witnesses. The trial Court has erred in not analyzing that all prosecution witnesses have given the same statement as communicated by the Investigating Officer as collected from the appellant-accused, but, during the evidence and cross- - 6 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 examination, none of them have supported the same. The evidence on record, as well as the case papers, discloses that accused was neither present nor any of the prosecution witnesses had seen the accused committing the offence and there are no direct eye-witnesses to the incident. It is further submitted that the trial Court has erred in not analysing that the Investigating Officer has taken the signature of the accused to the copy of the statement, which cannot be relied upon by the Court. The trial Court has not given a finding that there are no direct eye-witnesses. It has relied upon the vague statement of the complainant. The trial Court has not taken note of the fact that there have been no instances earlier and if there had been an intention to murder, there would have been lots of opportunities. The evidence on record discloses that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and the reasoning given for the same by the trial Court is not legally sustainable. The trial Court erred in not giving the benefit of doubt arising out of perusal of evidence on record, so as to believe the facts and allegations. There is no proper and legally acceptable evidence on record for the proof of charges levelled beyond reasonable doubt. On all these grounds, the learned counsel sought for allowing the appeal. - 7 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 Submissions on behalf of the State: 6. On the other hand, Sri M.B. Gundwade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated evidence in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely there are no materials before the Court to acquit the accused. He further submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and there is no ground for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the materials place before the court, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the applicant/accused made out an account to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court? 2. What order? 8. Our answer to the above points is: - 8 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 Point No.1: in the negative Point No.2: as per final order. Regarding Point No.1: 9. Before we analyze the evidence of the above witnesses, it is necessary to briefly examine the law relating to Extra- judicial Confession as the present case is a case of extra- judicial confession allegedly made by the accused before PW1 husband of the accused, PWs2 and 3 who are mother and mother-in-law of the accused respectively, and PWs4 and 5, who are the neighbours. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the decision of RAMU APPU MAHAPATAR v. STATR OF MAHARASHTRA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2013 decided on 04th February, 2025, following the decision of SANSAR CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in (2010)10 SCC 604 whereby which would make the extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis for conviction of an accused which principles were summed up by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SAHADEVAN v. STATE OF TAMILNADU reported in (2012)6 SCC 403 was reiterated. The principles so summed up are extracted herebelow: - 9 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 “(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (v) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.” 10. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant is a Mason by profession and his mother works in a chilly pounding shop. He, his mother, his wife-accused and his two children reside in a rented house at Nava Ayodhya Nagar, Hubballi. The accused was working in Cloth Shop for some time back and later was working as an Attender in the Hospital. It is also stated in the complaint that the accused had illicit affairs. She used to return home late from work, which made the complainant and his mother-in-law asking her to quit the job and stay at home. Due to this and also wanting to continue - 10 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 her illicit relationship with her paramour, the accused decided to commit murder of her children, so that it would make easier for her to elope with one of her boyfriends. With this thought in her mind, she strangulated her two children by using ID card band and veil and committed murder. Thus, accused committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 11. We have carefully examined the material placed before the Court. Though 29 witnesses are charge-sheeted, only eight have been examined as PWs1 to 8; 24 documents have been marked as Exhibits P1 to P24; and twelve material objects are marked as MOs1 to 12. 12. CW1-Parashuram and also attestor to the Mahazar is examined as PW1. Accused is his wife. He has deposed in his evidence that his mother PW3, Accused along with two children, namely Rohit and Rohini were residing in a rented house near Nava Ayodhyanagar, Hubballi. His mother-PW3 was working in a chilly pounding shop. Accused initially was employed in a cloth shop. Accused quit the employment at the instance of her husband for the reason that she used to come late to the house. On 11th December 2018 at 7:45 am he - 11 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 dropped his son Rohit to Nursery (Balawadi) near Siddharudhamath and at 9:30 am he left for work. By that time, his mother PW3, his wife accused and his minor daughter Rohini were at home. On the same day, near Keshwapur, Shanti Colony when he was on duty between 5.00 and 5:30 pm he has received a call from one of his relatives viz. Mallappa Bankapura that his kids are not well and he called him to come to house immediately. Then he came to home at 6:30 pm. His mother also came. On enquiry with the neighbours about the children, he came to know that the kids are admitted in KIMS Hospital, then he and his mother rushed to KIMS Hospital where his wife-accused was also there. On enquiry, she has stated that the children after having Ber-fruit and fried gram, slept and when they did not wake up and were not responding, with the help of the neighbours, they were taken to Naregal Hospital and admitted for treatment and as per their advice, the children were shifted to KIMS Hospital. On enquiry with the neighbours and accused, the accused has confessed that she has killed her children by strangulating with the band of ID card and veil. Then he lodged the complaint to the police as per Exhibit P1. He has also identified the ID card band and the veil. - 12 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 13. CW10-Shanta Bharamappa Yavagal is the mother of the accused examined as PW2. She has deposed that CW1 is her son-in-law and accused is her second daughter and her marriage was celebrated with PW1. Out of marriage, she had two children, one boy and one girl. As the children are grown- up, she has also started to go for work. Her husband told her not to go to work and look after the children as his earning is sufficient to meet the family requirements. Even the mother of PW1 was going to work in chilly pounding shop. Accordingly, her daughter quit the job and remained at home as a housewife. She has also deposed by the neighbours of her daughter used to tell her that her daughter is roaming with some other male persons. Despite repeated instructions, she did not mind her behaviour. On 11th December 2018 at 6.00 pm her daughter called her and informed that the children having slept after consuming ber-fruit and fried gram, have not woken up and are also not responding. Immediately, she rushed to her daughter’s house where children were lying as they were sleeping and her daughter was alone at home. Immediately with the help of an auto rickshaw, they have taken the children to Nagal Hospital, where the doctors Told that children are dead about 2 to 3 hours back itself and accordingly - 13 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 advised them to take the bodies to Kim's Hospital. Despite repeated enquiry, the daughter did not tell anything. But subsequently, on the second day in the presence of elders, she has confessed that she killed her children with the help of ID band and wheel. She has deposed that she was present there and she has not informed anything to the police. 14. CW8-Gowramma, who has been examined as PW3, has deposed in her evidence that PW1 is her son and the accused is her daughter-in-law. Herself, her son, her daughter- in-law and her two grandchildren viz. Rohit and Rohini who were aged six and four years respectively, were residing together. Her son is doing Masonary work. She was working in a chilly pounding shop. Even her daughter-in-law/accused went to work for about six months in a Hospital as an Attender and used to go to night shift and used to return at 9.30 in the morning. Later she joined a Cloth shop and used to return to home late night at 10.00-10.30 pm. Since she and her son were both working and thinking that if the daughter-in-law also goes for work, there would be no one at home to look after the children, they asked her to quit the job and one month prior to death of her grand-children, the accused quit job and was staying at home. She has further deposed that about two - 14 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 years back on 11th December, 2018, her son had dropped his son-Rohit to Nursery and he had left for work at 9.30 am. Grand daughter-Rohini was at home. Her grandson was picked-up from school by her daughter-in-law/accused at about 11.30 am and at that time she left out to bring vegetables. After getting vegetables, she left to work at 12.00 noon. When she was in the chilly pounding shop at about 6.00 pm, her neighbour called and informed her to come home immediately. When she reached home, there was no one and she was informed that all have gone to Hospital. By that time her son also came. Then both rushed to KIMS Hospital where her daughter-in-law and her parents were there. On enquiry with daughter-in-law, she informed that the children having slept after having ber-fruit and fried gram did not wake up and when they did not respondent, they were taken to Naregal Hospital, where Doctors told to take to KIMS Hospital. Later on enquiry, her daughter-in-law in front of neighbours, confessed that she has killed the children by strangulating them. She is not aware as to why the accused has committed the murder of her children. 15. CW14-Manjunath Basavaraj Shamagondi, who is examined as PW4, has deposed in his evidence that he, with his - 15 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 family, was residing on the first floor where the complainant’s family is residing. He has deposed that the complainant is a mason by profession. His mother is going to work in Chilly pounding shop and his wife was also working and for some time back she has stopped going to work. He has deposed that two years back, at about 2.30-3.00 pm, the accused was talking with the building owner stating that her children having slept after eating ber-fruit and fried gram have not woken up. Immediately, he along with another neighbour, took the children to Naregal Hospital where they refused to give treatment and were advised to go to KIMS Hospital. Accordingly, they went to KIMS hospital. After about half an hour, the Doctors having examined the kids, informed that they were dead two hours before and also informed that they have been murdered and have not died by consuming ber-fruit or friedgram. By that time, he enquired with the accused as to anybody came home, and she said she was alone with children. On the next morning, in front of parents and elders of the society, she confessed that she has murdered the children by crushing their neck with her leg. He has further deposed that she might have committed the murder as she was having illicit relation-ship with several others. - 16 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 16. CW18-Mailarappa Gangappa Bankapur, who is the neighbour and examined as PW5, has deposed that he knows CW1 and is wife. In the house of PW1, the complainant, his mother, his wife and his two children were residing. He also has deposed as to the profession of the complainant, his mother going to work and his wife/accused was also working and after quitting the job, she staying at home. Subsequently, he came to know that she was having illicit relationship with several others. In the year 2018, he does not know the month and day, after he returning to home from work, his wife informed that the accused took her children to the hospital on the ground that the children who slept after eating ber-fruit and fried gram did not wake up. Accordingly, he went to Naregal Hospital, where the doctors refused to give treatment and advised them to go to KIMS Hospital. They have taken the children to KIMS Hospital. He informed the said fact to PW1 who came to the Hospital. After enquiry with the accused about the incident, the accused did not disclose anything. Thereafter, he came to know that she had murdered her children by using the ID band and veil and strangulated them. This was done, as she was having illicit relationship with somebody. - 17 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 17. CW26-Dr. Sunilkumar Biradar, who is examined as PW6, has deposed in his evidence as to the post-mortem examination of the deceased Rohit and Rohini on 12th December 2018, at the request of the Police Inspector attached to Old Hubli Police Station in connection with Crime No.189 of 2018, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and after examination, he has issued post-mortem reports Exhibits-P11 and 12. He has also deposed that he has given his opinion that the death of children is because of asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation and has issued report Exhibits P14 and 15. He has also identified MOs1 and 2 and stated that these were the articles sent to him for examination. 18. CW4-Manjunath Junjappa Bankapur Please examine – PW8 has deposed as to the Panchanama conducted by the Police as per Exhibit P3 and also deposed as to the identification of photo Exhibit P2 and MOs1 and 2. 19. CW29-Maruti S Gullari, Police inspector who is the Investigating Officer examined as PW7, has deposed as to the investigation conducted by him. - 18 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 20. In the case on hand, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The evidence placed by the prosecution reveals that on 11th December 2018 morning PW1, dropped his son to the school at 7:45 am and later he left for work at 9:30 am and by that time, his mother PW3, his wife accused and his daughter Rohini were there at home. He has also deposed that his mother has left home for work at 12 noon. The accused has picked up her son from the school at 12 noon and at about 2.00 pm, when nobody was there at the house except accused and the children, she decided utilise opportunity to commit murder of their children and accordingly with the help of the school ID band and veil strangulated and murdered her both kids. The evidence placed by the prosecution, reveals that after commission of offence, the accused has created a drama by reporting the same to the owner of the house stating that her children having slept after consuming ber-fruit and friedgram have not woken up or not even talking and hence accused with the help of another tenant residing in the same building and with the help of neighbours, and after calling her mother, taken the children to the hospital, Naregal Hospital, where the doctors have advised them to take to KIMS hospital. Accordingly, they were taken to KIMS hospital - 19 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 and admitted for treatment. After receiving the phone call, PW1, PW3 went to KIMS Hospital where the accused told them that the children after consuming ber-fruit and fried gram who have slept, have not woken up and hence they were brought to hospital for treatment. But later, on suspicion, when PW1 enquired with her in the presence of elders, she has confessed as to commission of murder of her children. Material witnesses, PW1 husband of the accused PW2, mother of the accused and PW3, mother-in-law of the accused and independent witnesses PW4-Manjunath Basavaraj Shamagondi and PW5-Mallappa Bankapura, have clearly stated in their evidence that the accused has confessed before them that she has murdered her two kids by using ID band and veil. The motive of the accused for commission of this offence, as pleaded by prosecution, is that the accused was leading unchaste life roaming with various persons, despite her mother tried to mend and changing her behaviour were in vain and in the intention of living her style of life, ultimately, she took the decision of committing the offence of murdering the two minor kids. Same is also confessed by the accused before the aforesaid witnesses. Absolutely, there are no materials - 20 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 witnesses to disbelieve the evidence of PWs1 to 5 as to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. 21. Apart from this, the medical evidence, i.e. the post- mortem report and the evidence of Doctor reveals as to the cause of death. After this incident the accused and others took the kids to the KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, and on examination of the kids, the doctors found that it is possible to sustain the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report and the cause of death of Rohit and Rohini is asphyxia as a result of Ligature strangulation. Exhibits P14 and P15 are also produced. This medical evidence is not disputed by the accused. Even accused has not disputed the death of the kids. But the defence taken by accused is that PW3 that her mother-in-law strangulated her kids with an intention to get married her son to another girl. This evidence set up by accused has not been proved. The accused, in her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has deposed that her mother-in- law has murdered her children and at the time of death, she was not present at home. But the evidence of the prosecution witnesses disclose that the accused alone was present with the children, and after commission of offence, accused has informed the same to the owner of the house that her children - 21 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 who slept after consuming ber-fruit and fried gram have not woken up and are not responding. Evidence of prosecution witnesses which are deposed on the basis of extra-judicial confession made by the accused along with a medical evidence, reveals that the prosecution has proved that death of Rohit and Rohini is a homicidal death. If PW3-grandmother of the deceased had committed the murder, nothing prevented the accused from setting the law into motion by approaching the police station or by giving information while admitting the kids to the hospital. The accused has also not placed any material to show that she was not present at home at the time of alleged incident. The conduct of the accused itself reveals that she has set up a false defence, so as to escape from the clutches of law. 22. The spot mahajar, inquest Panchama, post-mortem report, seizure of material objects used for commission of offence, photos taken at the time of inquest, seizure panchnama, cloth seizure panchnama, opinion of the Doctors as to the cause of the death of the kids, all would reveal that the evidence of prosecution witnesses inspire confidence that extra-judicial confession of the accused attains a greater credibility and evidentiary value, as the same is supported by - 22 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 consistent and cogent evidence corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. The extra-judicial confession made by the accused does not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. Notably, PW2 being the mother of the accused, has deposed in her evidence as to the confession made by the accused before Panchas that she has murdered her children with veil and ID band. During the course of cross- examination of the material prosecution witnesses, accused has not elicited any favourable answers from them to substantiate the defence set up by her. Absolutely, there are no materials to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are trustworthy, believable, reliable and material. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. 23. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AMBIKA PRASAD AND AONTHER v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) reported in (2000)2 SCC 646, wherein it is held that the criminal trial is meant for doing justice not just to the accused but also to the victim and the society, so that law and order is maintained. It was further observed that a Judge does not preside over criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. - 23 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 It was held that a Judge presides over criminal trial also to see that guilty may does not escape. The said judgment was again followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAM GULAM CHAUDHURY AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in 2001 SUPP(3) 279. 24. On appreciation, reconsideration, and re- examination of the entire material placed before this Court, we do not find any error or illegality/infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order in sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make out a ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative. Regarding point No.2: 25. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following: - 24 - CRL.A No.100193/2023 O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed; 2. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 31st March 2021 passed in SC No.94 of 2019 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge Dharwad sitting at Hubballi is confirmed; 3. Registry to send back the trial court records along with the copy of this judgment to the concerned Court and also to the concerned Superintendent of Police as the accused is in custody, for taking necessary steps to serve the same to the accused. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn