- 1 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100501 OF 2021 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, MUNDAGOD POLICE STATION, UTTARA KANNADA, THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP) AND: SHRI. RAMESH S/O. DASAPPA GOLLAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KANESHWARI TEMPLE ONI, BADANAGOD, SIRSI-581401, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G.DALAWAI, AMICUS CURIAE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.378(1) & (3) OF Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 23.11.2020, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UTTAR KANNADA KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI IN S.C.NO.5011/2017; TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.11.2020, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT UTTAR KANNADA KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI IN S.C.NO.5011/2017; TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC.302 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 2 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23.11.2020 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar sitting at Sirsi in S.C.No.5011/2017, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under; 3. C.W.1, who is the informant and the father of the deceased, has alleged that around three years ago, at approximately 11:00 a.m., he returned to his village and found that his son, Imran, was not at home. Upon enquiring with his wife, he was informed that Imran had gone out on his bicycle. However, even by evening, Imran - 3 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 had not returned. Concerned, the informant, along with his family members, began searching for him, but their efforts were in vain. 4. On the following day, while the informant was speaking with some villagers about his missing son, a local fishing vendor named Munna informed him that a bicycle was seen abandoned near the Dharma Reservoir and that a body was seen floating there. The informant, accompanied by others, rushed to the spot and found both the bicycle and the lifeless body of his son. Shockingly, the head had been severed from the body. He immediately informed the police over the telephone, and the police arrived at the scene and recorded his complaint. 5. Based on the complaint of C.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No. 217/2016, initially on suspicion that Imran had been murdered. The Investigating Officer commenced the investigation and, during its course, arrested the accused. The accused was subsequently charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. - 4 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 6. The case was later investigated by P.W.13, who filed the charge sheet. Upon committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused under Section 302 IPC and explained the same to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and sought to face trial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 29 documents as Exhibits P1 to P29. Additionally, 12 material objects were produced as M.O.1 to M.O.12. During his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused denied any involvement in the offence and claimed that a false case had been foisted upon him. However, he did not examine any witnesses in his defence. 8. Upon considering the entire evidence on record, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused of the charge. Aggrieved by this verdict, the State has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal. - 5 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 9. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor (ASPP) appearing for the appellant-State and the learned Amicus Curiae representing the respondent/accused. 10. The learned ASPP, while reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. He emphasized that P.W.5 is a witness to the seizure mahazar (Exhibit P11), through which the Investigating Officer seized a sickle, shirt, and pant (marked as M.O.4 to M.O.6) allegedly produced by the accused. He further noted that P.W.9 was present at the time of the seizure of the accused's shirt. 11. The Addl. SPP argued that the accused has not explained how his clothes came to be stained with blood of the ‘O’ group, the same blood group as that of the deceased. He pointed out that the accused was arrested based on credible information on 28.11.2016 and, during interrogation, made a voluntary statement (Ex.P23), leading to the seizure of the bloodstained clothes and - 6 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 weapon in the presence of P.W.5 and other witnesses. The weapon allegedly used in the murder, marked as M.O.4, was recovered under Ex.P11. 12. He further relied on the medical and serological evidence, particularly Ex.P26, which confirms that the shirt, pant, and sickle bore bloodstains matching the deceased’s blood group. He contended that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused and that the Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused despite this evidence. Therefore, he submitted, the impugned judgment warrants interference. 13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. We have meticulously examined the evidence and material available on record, including the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The following point would arise for our consideration. - 7 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 “Whether the Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?” Finding on the point. 14. Before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined a total of 15 witnesses in support of its case. Among them, P.W.1 is the complainant and informant, who lodged the complaint as per Exhibit P1. The spot panchanama was marked as Exhibit P2. P.Ws.2 and 3 are witnesses who accompanied P.W.1 on 20.11.2016 to the Dharma Reservoir, where the dead body of the deceased was found floating. 15. P.W.1, the informant and father of the deceased, deposed that approximately eight days after the incident, the police showed him the accused and informed him that the accused had murdered his son. He further stated that the police told him the accused had committed the murder because he claimed to have received a divine - 8 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 command in a dream, allegedly, God instructed him to behead someone. 16. P.W.2, in his examination-in-chief, stated that he saw the dead body of the deceased floating in the Dharma Reservoir and observed that the head had been severed from the torso. However, beyond this observation, he disclaimed any further knowledge. The prosecution treated P.W.2 as a hostile witness. He categorically denied that P.W.1 had informed him about the deceased going missing the previous day. He also denied that the police had informed him about the motive behind the murder namely, the accused’s claimed vision involving the goddess Huligemma. Moreover, P.W.2 denied giving any statement to the police, including Exs.P4 and P5, which were said to be his prior statements. 17. P.W.3, a relative of P.W.1, is another circumstantial witness. He confirmed that he had accompanied P.W.1 to the reservoir on 20.11.2016. He admitted that the police informed him that the accused was responsible for the murder. However, his evidence is - 9 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 limited to this hearsay information and lacks any independent or direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. 18. P.W.5 is a key prosecution witness, being the attesting witness to the recovery panchanama. He deposed that the accused led the police to a tree from which the sickle allegedly used in the murder was recovered. He further stated that the accused took the police to his residence and voluntarily produced bloodstained clothes, which were seized in the presence of panchas under a seizure panchanama. 19. P.Ws.6 and 7 are purported to be circumstantial witnesses. However, both were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. Their only consistent testimony is that they visited the Dharma Reservoir after hearing that a dead body had been found and saw the decapitated body floating in the water. P.W.6 denied giving any statement to the police as per Ex.P15. P.W.7 not only turned hostile but also denied having visited the - 10 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 police station on 28.11.2016 or having made any statements, including those marked as Exs.P16 and P17. 20. P.W.8, another material witness, stated that on the day of the incident, he had gone fishing in the Dharma Reservoir along with C.Ws.14 and 15. He noticed a group of 4–5 boys also fishing nearby. While returning home, he saw a body floating in the reservoir. The next day, when P.W.1 was searching for his missing son, P.W.8 informed him of what he had seen. He also deposed that he, along with C.Ws.14 and 15, assisted the police in searching the reservoir and allegedly helped recover clothes said to belong to the accused. 21. P.W.11 is the panch witness to the inquest panchanama prepared over the deceased's body. 22. P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer (IO). He deposed that he visited the scene of the offence on 22.11.2016. He further stated that on 28.11.2016, he observed the accused roaming near his house with a sickle in his hand, and that the accused had been absconding - 11 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 from the village after the incident. According to him, the accused was arrested near his house at about 11:15 a.m. on the same day. During interrogation, the accused allegedly confessed to having murdered the deceased based on a divine instruction from Goddess Huligemma, who appeared in his dream and directed him to behead a person to rid his family of difficulties. The IO recorded this voluntary statement, which led to the recovery of the weapon (sickle) and bloodstained clothes. 23. On careful reassessment of the material on record, it emerges that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is largely hearsay and lacks probative value. Both witnesses turned hostile and disclaimed any prior knowledge of the incident or involvement of the accused. Although the prosecution has relied heavily on the testimony of P.W.5 regarding the recovery of the sickle and clothes, a close scrutiny of his evidence reveals inconsistencies. The recovery appears to have been orchestrated by the police rather than truly at the instance of the accused, undermining its evidentiary value. Notably, P.W.5 - 12 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 contradicted the contents of Ex.P11, the recovery panchanama, and even stated that the police showed him the dead body, a fact not aligned with the timing and context of Ex.P11. These inconsistencies are materially significant and cast serious doubt on the credibility of the recovery proceedings. 24. Furthermore, P.Ws.8 and 9, who allegedly assisted in the retrieval of the clothes from a water tank, did not substantiate the prosecution’s version during their deposition. While their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. mentioned that the accused led them to the location where his clothes were buried, this crucial detail was not deposed to in their evidence before the Court. Such omissions are critical and impair the credibility of the prosecution’s recovery theory. 25. The claim made by the Investigating Officer, P.W.13, that the accused had absconded after committing the murder stands contradicted by the prosecution’s own version that the accused was arrested near his house. This inconsistency raises a serious question regarding the - 13 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 alleged abscondence and weakens the reliability of the narrative concerning the arrest and the recovery following the so-called voluntary statement. The alleged voluntary disclosure and subsequent recovery of material objects including the weapon and bloodstained clothes thus become highly doubtful. 26. A significant and glaring lapse in the investigation is the failure of the Investigating Officer to secure and place on record the blood group report of the deceased. Although the serology report (Ex.P26) indicates that the sickle (M.O.4) and the clothes seized from the accused bore bloodstains of the ‘O’ blood group, the absence of any evidence to establish the blood group of the deceased renders this finding inconclusive. In the absence of a confirmed match, the prosecution cannot conclusively link the bloodstains to the deceased. This oversight is a substantial lapse and undermines the prosecution’s effort to establish a direct connection between the accused and the crime. - 14 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 27. Upon independent analysis of the evidence available on record, we find that the alleged voluntary statement of the accused is inadmissible in law and the recoveries made pursuant thereto are unreliable, especially in light of the lack of corroboration by the witnesses. The alleged motive that the accused acted upon divine instructions received in a dream remains unsubstantiated. Further, the prosecution failed to establish key forensic links, such as the blood group of the deceased or any forensic link between the accused and the scene of crime. In light of these glaring deficiencies, we find no compelling reason to interfere with the well- reasoned and detailed judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CHANDRAPPA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2007) 4 SCC 415, has clearly laid down the principles governing appellate interference in an appeal against acquittal. It is a settled principle that the appellate court must give due weight to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, - 15 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 which is strengthened when the trial court has rendered an acquittal. Unless the trial court's findings are shown to be manifestly erroneous or perverse, appellate interference is unwarranted. In the present case, after considering the entire material on record, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are supported by the evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, we are not inclined to disturb the judgment of acquittal. The point framed for determination is accordingly answered in the negative. 29. For the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal filed the appellant-State is hereby dismissed. ii) The judgment dated 23.11.2020 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, - 16 - CRL.A.NO.100501 of 2021 U.K., Karwar sitting at Sirsi in S.C.No.5011/2017 is hereby confirmed. The fee of the learned Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.10.000/- for assisting the court in disposal of the case. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh