- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100252 OF 2020 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAVALGUND P.S., DIST: DHARWAD, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDWADE, ADDL. SPP) AND: 1. ANILRAJ S/O BASAVARAJ KUSNUR AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 2. AMRUT S/O BASAVARAJ KUSNUR AGED ABOUT: 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, BOTH ARE R/O: UGARGOL, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SANTOSH KRISHNA KADEMANI R/O. YALLAMMANA GUDDA, TQ. SAVADATTI (SPLIT UP) PIN CODE 591126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH AND DELETED V/C/O. DATED 06.08.2021 AND 19.11.2021 RESPECTIVELY. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.03.22 11:25:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 15/10/2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN S.C. NO.02/2017 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 15/10/2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SESSIONS CASE NO.02/2017 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.10.2019, passed by the learned IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, (for short, `trial Court’), in S.C.No.2/2017. 2. The accused No.1 to 3 have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, `IPC’). From the date of the incident, accused No.3 was said to be absconding. Therefore, the case against him was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 split up by the committal Court and separate case was registered. The accused No.1 and 2 have faced the trial before the trial Court and they were acquitted for the offences alleged against them by the learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment. 3. We refer to the parties as per their rankings before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that: Accused No.1 and 2 and PW.8 – Subhas R. Patil are relatives. All of them were related to one Mahadevagouda Patil, who was owner of the land situated at Hireulligeri village. Accused No.1 and 2 as well as Subhas Patil were claiming right over the property belonging to Mahadevagouda Patil. It is stated in the charge sheet that the deceased was supporting Subhas Patil and he was coming in the way of accused to get the said property of Mahadevagouda Patil. It appears that a panchayath was held to settle the dispute between Subhas Patil and accused No.1 and 2. In the said panchayath, once again the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 deceased supported the contentions of Subhas Patil. Therefore, accused No.1 and 2 were very angry against deceased Umesh. They have given threat to kill him, if he interferes in their affairs. They were threatening to murder him. 5. Deceased Umesh was residing in a farm house situated in Ugargol village on 15/08/2016 at 6:30 p.m., he came to vegetable market on his motorcycle to purchase vegetables. After purchasing vegetables, he was returning to his village on his motorcycle through Ugargol and Hallikeri road. Accused No.1 and 2 were following and watching the movement of the deceased in the market. They followed him in their car, which had no registration number. On the way, they intercepted deceased Umesh and accused No.1 threw chilli powder on him and in the meantime, accused No.2 assaulted him with wooden stick/club (MO-14) and caused grievous injuries on his head. He become unconscious. Thereafter both accused put him inside the car and accused No.1 drove his car - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 towards Belavatagi village. Both accused No.1 and 2 informed accused No.3 to come to Sangollirayanna Circle at Ugargol. Accused No.2 rode the motorcycle of the deceased Umesh and came to Sangollirayanna Circle. They handed over motorcycle of the deceased to accused No.3 with a direction to hide the said vehicle and not to inform the said fact to anybody. 6. It is further case of prosecution that, both the accused No.1 and 2 went to Kamanshikshe in their car along with deceased. The said Umesh was unconscious. Accused No.1 & 2 again assaulted him with an axe (MO-13) and caused his death. Thereafter, with an intention to conceal the dead body, they took it to Belavatagi. They found that there was no sufficient water in the pond and hence they took the dead body and hid it inside huge pipe of the culvert situated at Belavatagi road. 7. On the next day, accused Nos.1 to 3 went to the said culvert along with a can of petrol, poured petrol on the dead body and lit fire. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 went to waterfall situated in Yellammanagudda, washed the car and MO-13 and MO-14. They also burnt the blood stained clothes which were worn by them at the time of incident, near the waterfall. 8. On 15.08.2016, the deceased Umesh did not return home till late evening. PW-7 – Savithri Umesh Mangalarati, wife of the deceased, contacted PW-11 – Shivanand, brother of the deceased over phone and intimated him that her husband did not come home till that time. PW-11 tried to contact the deceased through his mobile phone, however, he was getting a message that the said mobile phone was switched off. Thereafter, he searched for Umesh in the nearby places and on 20.08.2016, he lodged complaint in Saundatti Police Station regarding missing of his brother deceased Umesh. On the basis of the said missing complaint, a case was registered by Saundatti police. 9. On 20.08.2016, some of the villagers found a foul smell near the culvert and they also found a dead body - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 which was incompletely burnt inside the pipe of the culvert. It appears that the villagers reported the same to the Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) of Belavatagi Village Panchayath. On the next day, PW-2 – Ravirajagouda shankaragouda Hiregoudar, PDO of Belavatagi Village Panchayath lodged the complaint to Navalgund Police Station as per Ex.P-1. On that basis, the Station House Officer of Navalgund Police Station registered a case in Crime No.334/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 10. The investigation was taken up by PW-26 –Diwakar Y., Circle Police Inspector of Navalgund Circle. He investigated the case and on conclusion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet to the Court of J.M.F.C., Navalgund. Since the alleged offences are triable by the Court of Sessions and hence the JMFC Court committed the case to District and Sessions Judge court, at Dharwad and the case was tried by the learned IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 11. The accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence prosecution to prove its case, examined 26 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-26 and got marked 67 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-67 and 21 properties as MO- 1 to MO-21 and closed its evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and their answers were recorded. The accused have not led defence evidence. In the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, accused got marked one document as per Ex.D-1. 12. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides and appreciating the evidence available on record, answered both the charges in the negative and acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal. 13. We have heard the learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel appearing for - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 the respondents/accused and perused the materials on record. 14. Learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor (for short, `Addl.SPP’) submits that the accused are charge sheeted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the incident. PW-11 and PW-13 have stated about motive of accused to murder Umesh PW-13 has stated that on 15.08.2016, he saw that accused Nos.1 and 2 were following the deceased Umesh in Ugargol market and even they chased the said Umesh, in their car. In his cross-examination, nothing was brought out to discard his evidence. 15. The dead body was highly decomposed and half burnt. It was difficult to identify the body. PW-11 on the basis of rings worn by the deceased verification of photo of dead body identified it. The deceased was physically handicapped and his left had near wrist was amputated. On that basis also, the dead body was identified. To avoid confusion, the prosecution sent the blood samples of two - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 daughters and brother of the deceased to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for DNA test. The DNA profile proved that the dead body was of Umesh. 16. He further submits that the police have arrested accused No.1 and 2 and recorded their confession statement and on that basis seized incriminating articles. They were sent to FSL for serology test. In the said report also it was found that the blood stains found on MO-14 and sample blood stains on the mud and bush etc., are of human blood of `A’ group. The said articles were seized on the confession of the accused. Therefore, it clearly indicates that the said blood stains are of deceased and it is also proved that the said weapons were used to assault the deceased. 17. Further, the prosecution examined Medical Officer and produced the post mortem report at Ex.P-44. PW-12 – Doctor in his evidence has stated that there were five injuries on the head of the deceased which would cause death of a person. In the cross-examination of material - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 witnesses, nothing was brought out to discard their evidence. The trial Court erroneously acquitted the accused by incorrect analysis of the evidence. Therefore, prayed to reverse the judgment passed by the trial Court. 18. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record and came to a right conclusion. The motive of the incident is said to be the dispute between accused and Subhas Patil, in respect of a land belonging to Mahadevagouda Patil. During the evidence, PW-8 Subhas Patil turned hostile and has stated that he has not stated before the police that accused had any dispute with him in respect of the property belonging to Mahadevagouda Patil. He denied his previous statement as per Ex.P-40. When there was no dispute, the question of deceased supporting the contention of Subhas Patil and for that purpose, accused murdered Umesh are not at all believable. Moreover, if the accused had any dispute with Subhas Patil, then there was no need for them to murder - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 deceased Umesh was not claiming any right over the said property. Therefore, the said contention is not probable. 19. Learned counsel for the accused further submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt about recording of the confession statements of the accused and seizure of the incriminating articles. PW-4 is a witness to the said seizure mahazar. Though in his examination-in-chief, he has supported the case of the prosecution but in his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know the contents of the mahazar and at the instance of the police he signed on the said documents. It is the contention of the accused that he was a stock witness of Navalgund Police Station; and he accepted the same in his cross-examination. In view of the same, his evidence is not reliable. 20. Learned counsel for the accused further contended that the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated the case. If the accused really intended to destroy the evidence, then they would have burnt it on the same day. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 As per the evidence of PW-11, 14 and 4, the culvert where the dead body was kept, was a public road and always there is heavy traffic. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to accept that nobody could see it and the accused dare to keep the dead body in such a place, which is not probable. 21. Learned counsel has further stated that the prosecution to prove its case, examined PW-21 – Sadugouda Patil, who was said to have seen accused Nos.1 to 3 near the said culvert on 16.08.2016 has turned hostile. According to the evidence of PW-13, accused No.1 and 2 were chasing deceased from Ugargol market when he was going home. The Investigating Officer has not examined any of the witnesses in this regard. Ugargol is a small village and people could definitely see if that accused’s were following the deceased. No such witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Accused No.1 and 2 have been charge sheeted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 each circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. If any one of the circumstance is not proved, then the case has to fail. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove any of the circumstances. Considering all these facts the learned trial Judge rightly acquitted them and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 22. Following question arises for our consideration: i) Whether the learned trial judge erred in acquitting the accused for the alleged charges and interference in the said finding is required? ii) What order? 23. Looking to the entire materials available on record, the prosecution has to prove the following circumstances to connect the accused with the guilt : (i) motive, (ii) confession of the accused Nos.1 and 2 leading to discovery of incriminating articles. (iii) seizure of the incriminating materials. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 (iv) death of Umesh is homicidal. (v) identity of the dead body. 24. The prosecution examined PW-3 who is a witness to the inquest panchanama. He has stated about drawing of the inquest mahazar by PW-26 as per Ex.P-8 and taking the photographs as per Ex.P-16 to P-19. He has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. Finding of the dead body in the culvert is not seriously disputed. Admittedly the dead body was highly decomposed and half burnt therefore it was unidentifiable. 25. Post mortem was conducted at the spot and post mortem report is at Ex.P-44. In Ex.P-44 injuries found on the body are as under: 1) xxx xxx xxx 2) xxx xxx xxx 3) Deep gaping wound of size 7 cm x 4 cm x bone deep underlying frontal bone is fractured (right), 4) Deep gaping wound of seize 12 cm x 4 cm x bone deep extending from left mastoids to right - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 mastoid process underlying occipital bone fractured, 5) Right upper limb shows post mortem growing lower animals at forearm level, 6) Left hand is missing at level of wrist. In Ex.P-44, the Medical Officer has stated that “Final report is awaited till the DNA & chemical analysis”. It appears that the Investigating Officer has not obtained final report from the doctor and produced before the Court. Ex.P- 44 shows that there were grievous injuries on the head. 26. The dead body could not be identified. Hence during post mortem, third molar and left femur bone were preserved for DNA analysis. They were sent to DNA analysis along with blood samples of two daughters and brother of the deceased. 27. PW-1 is the learned Magistrate. In his evidence, he has stated about taking of the blood samples from two daughters and brother of the deceased in the court to send to FSL for DNA profile. The Centre for DNA Finger printing - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 and Diagnostics has given a report of DNA profile, as per Ex.P-58. The said certificate is enclosed with the copy of Identification Form of two daughters and brother of the deceased, which are at Ex.P-59 to P-61. From the said materials prosecution is able to prove that the unidentified dead body is of deceased Umesh. From post mortem report it is proved that it was a homicidal death. 28. The next circumstance to connect the accused with the guilt is motive. As narrated above, one Mahadevagouda Patil, relative of PW-8 and accused No.1 & 2 died keening behind agricultural lands to an extent of 2 acres. After his death, there was dispute between PW-8 and accused claiming right over said property. During the panchayath, deceased was supporting Subhas Patil (PW-8). His intervention was not tolerated by the accused, therefore, they murdered him. 29. Prosecution to prove the motive examined PW-8. He has completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution and stated that he had no dispute in respect of - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 the property with the accused. In his cross-examination by the prosecution, he did not support the case of the prosecution and denied his previous statement as per Ex.P- 40. Nothing was brought out to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore the prosecution is not able to prove the motive. 30. PW-13 – Gajanan, in his evidence has stated that PW-8 and accused had dispute in respect of property belonging to Mahadevagouda Patil. Both of them were claiming right over said property. In this regard, panchayath was held and in the said panchayath deceased tried to advise the accused and supported Subhas Patil. It was not liked by the accused. During the panchayath, deceased Umesh was a Pancha. There was fight between deceased and accused No.1 and 2. Accused No.1 threatened Umesh that he would kill him and not leave him. 31. PW.13 further stated that after the panchayath, accused were watching movement of deceased Umesh. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 32. On 15.08.2016, he saw Umesh in Ugargol Bus Stand; it was a market day at Ugargol. The deceased Umesh also came to market and accused were following him. On the next day he went to the house of deceased, but he could not find him. Thereafter they searched Umesh and could not find him. PW-11 lodged complaint to Saundatti Police Station about missing of his brother Umesh. Three days after filing of the complaint, Navalgund Police met PW-11 and told him that they found a dead body near culvert of Navalgund and police showed him photo of the dead body and ornaments found in dead body. PW.11 identified photo of dead body and ornaments as of Umesh. 33. PW-13 in his further evidence has stated that PW-8 told the police that accused murdered the said Umesh and also manner in which the incident had taken place as if he had personally seen it. But cleverly says that on the basis of the statement given by the accused before the police, he came to know about the said facts. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 34. In the cross-examination, PW-13 admits that he had not stated all the facts to police which were stated in his examination-in-chief before the court. According to the previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, he just said about the quarrel between Umesh and accused at the time of panchayath. Evidence given before the Court on oath were not stated before the Investigating Officer. There are lot of improvements in his evidence. The deceased did not return home from 15.08.2016. PW-11 lodged the complaint, after five days from 15.08.2016. If PW-13 had seen all these facts, then he would have informed the same before PW.11 or police. In his cross- examination he admits that he is the close friend/relative of Subhas Patil. He had not seen the rings of the deceased which were seized by the police. He had not seen the decomposed body of the deceased. He went to the police station along with Subhas Patil and he had not given the details or statement which he has given before the Court. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 35. PW-13, is an interested witness. In the cross examination he admits that he got information from police. If he knew all these facts, there was no hurdle for him to say the same before the Investigating Officer. Hence his evidence is not reliable. 36. The next material witness in this case is PW-11. During his evidence, he has stated about missing of his elder brother Umesh; lodging of complaint; searching Umesh in and around Saundatti, Yellammanagudda, Naragund, Betsur, Heggravi etc., He has also stated about the information given to him by Navalgund police regarding finding of a dead body near Belavatagi culvert; identification of the dead body on the basis of photograph and rings found from the dead body of the deceased. The said evidence will not connect the accused with the incident. 37. PW-11 has also stated that the accused had dispute with PW-8 in respect of land belonging to Mahadevagouda Patil. He also stated that to settle the dispute, a panchayath was held and in the said panchayath, - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 deceased told the accused that they would not get any share in the said property. He further stated that he came to know that there was quarrel between accused and his brother and accused threatened his brother of dire consequences. 38. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he has not given the statement before the police about the quarrel between deceased Umesh and accused and holding of panchayath to solve the said dispute. He has also stated that his brother was not holding the driving licence to ride the motorcycle. After the death of Umesh, he did not see the said motorcycle which was possessed by Umesh. A criminal case was registered against him and his brother, which is pending before the Special Court at Belagavi. The evidence given by him was also denied by the accused. 39. The evidence of PW-11 is particularly in respect of the dispute between accused and deceased. As stated above, PW-8 himself has stated that he had no dispute with - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW-11 is not helpful to the case of prosecution and it is inconsistent to the evidence of PW-8. In view of these reasons, the prosecution is not able to prove the motive of the accused to murder Umesh. 40. The another strong circumstance to prove the incident against the accused is last seen theory. To prove the said last seen theory, prosecution examined PW-21. He has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 41. Prosecution to prove incriminating articles at the instance of accused examined PW.4 who is witness to Mahazars. In his examination-in-chief PW-4 has stated about going along with the accused and the police to different places wherein accused Nos.1 and 2 have taken them. He has also stated about the seizure of articles on the basis of confession of the accused. He identified the said mahazar, as well as articles seized by the police. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 42. In his cross-examination, he says that he does not know reading and writing. He has signed the mahazar since police took him to the spot. He does not know the date on which mahazars were written. He has not instructed the police to write the mahazar. He did not read the mahazar and even police also have not read over the same to him. Therefore, whatever written in the mahazar is not known to him. 43. In his further cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that near Belavatagi culvert, Hallikeri cross, Kamanshikshe, waterfall of Yellammanagudda, is always busy place. People and vehicles have been passing on the said road. When such being the case, it is difficult to believe that the accused assaulted the deceased with MO-13 and MO-14 and caused his death. In his cross-examination, he has also stated that when he was taken to the house of accused No.2, the door of his house was opened and nobody inside the house. He has not seen the house number and the police have also not identified the said house number from - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 the members of the panchayath. He further stated that there were no blood stains on the weapons (MO-13 and MO-14) and the police did not paels them at the spot of seizure. 44. The said evidence does not corroborate with the case of the prosecution. According to the prosecution, house of accused No.1 and 2 is surrounded by certain boundaries. Unless it is established that the said house was belonging to accused No.2, seizure of the articles will not help the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has not examined another witness to the mahazar. For above said reasons evidence of PW.4 is not reliable. 45. PW-14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are police officials who have assisted the Investigating Officer in registering the case, drawing of the mahazar etc., PW-18 is the photographer who has taken the photographs at the time of mahazar and also took the photograph of the dead body. PW-22, PW-23 and PW-25 are Scientific Officers of FSL. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 The evidence of these witnesses do not inspire confidence in the mind of the court. 46. PW-26 is the Investigating Officer. He narrated the investigation conducted by him. He has completely investigated the case. His evidence is not fully corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. Seizure of articles, i.e., weapon of offence on the basis of confession made by accused is not proved. In view of these reasons, the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 47. The learned trial Judge appreciating the materials available on record, rightly held that prosecution is unable to prove the guilt of the accused. We do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings. Normally while reversing the order of acquittal, the Court should be very cautious. Merely another view is possible cannot be a ground for reversing the judgment of acquittal. In view of the evidence discussed above, the prosecution has - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 miserably failed to prove the same. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused. 48. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that there are no reasons to interfere in the findings of the trial Court. The findings of the learned trial Judge are not perverse or arbitrary or illegal. Hence, it needs to be confirmed. 49. For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (iii) The judgment dated 15.10.2019, passed by the learned IV-Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Sessions Case No.2/2017, is confirmed. Registry to transmit the copy of this judgment along with TCR to the trial Court. In view of pendency of splitup case trial court shall maintain TCR. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3444-DB CRL.A No. 100252 of 2020 PW-7 – Smt.Savitri Umesh Mangalarati, is the widow of deceased Umesh, she has three minor daughters. Due to death of her husband, she and three minor daughters are helpless. Hence DLSA Dharwad shall consider their case and award compensation in accordance with law. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5