- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1570 OF 2018 (C) BETWEEN: PRASHANTHI W/O LATE HARISHA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT PANJALABAILU HOSAHOKLU HOUSE, KARIMENELU VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214. (NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON, SHIVAMOGGA) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATESH P. DALWAI.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BELTHANGADY CIRCLE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 22.08.2016 AND SENTENCE DATED 23.08.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN S.C.NO.23/2015- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) This appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 22.08.2016 and 23.08.2016 passed in S.C.No.23/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, (trial Court) by which the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 20.06.2014 between 3 p.m., and 5.30 p.m., appellant had committed murder of her husband -Harisha by strangulation and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 3. A complaint dated 21.06.2014 was filed by PW1 - Sharada stating that her brother Harisha was married to appellant-accused and was staying in a rented house, at Hosahoklu, Panjalabailu of Moodukodi Village. That on 20.06.2014, at 5.30 p.m., appellant had come along with her child to the house of PW1 and informed that Harisha having returned from his work at 3.00 p.m., went to sleep and has not woken up. Immediately, thereafter PW1 along with her relative and appellant went to the house of the deceased, found him lying still and not responding to her call. In the meanwhile appellant went out to secure doctor. The doctor arrived at 6.30 p.m., and declared that Harisha is dead. That on a close look, PW1 noticed small pieces of yellow color nylon rope stuck to his neck with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 strangulation mark. That Harisha and his wife the appellant were frequently quarrelling. That she had strong suspicion on the appellant of she committing murder of Harisha between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 20.06.2014. 4. Based on the said complaint respondent-police registered a case in Crime No.60/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC. After investigation the respondent-police filed charge sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 5. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses as PW1 to PW18 and marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to P15 and 9 material objects marked as M.Os.1 to 9. 6. Appellant denied the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and filed defence statement though did not adduce any evidence on her behalf. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 7. The trial Court framed following points for its consideration: "1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 20.06.2014 between 3 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., the accused has committed murder of her husband Harisha by strangulation and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code? 2. What order?" 8. The trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of following circumstances; (a). Purported statement of the appellant to PWs.1, 2 and 4 to cremate the body of the deceased either in the same village or in the village of the appellant and not to inform the police about the matter. (b). Evidence of PW9-Auto Driver regarding he dropping appellant and her child in his auto at the instruction of deceased from Panjalabailu of Moodukodi village at 12.30 p.m. on 20.06.2014. (c). Recovery of hair measuring 42 centimeters of length from the dead body of the deceased ruling out any circumstance of deceased having - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 had any quarrel with any other lady at the time of the incident. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, appellant is before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has neither proved the motive nor the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt. He submits the trial Court has failed to appreciate the conduct of the appellant which is absolutely normal. In that, immediately on appellant noticing deceased not responding to her calls had rushed to PW1 and informed her about the same. Thereafter appellant went to call for doctor who came at 6.30 p.m. That evidence of PW-12 Dr.Santhosh Rego corroborates the stand of the appellant of she having gone to call the doctor. Thus, he submits that the said conduct being absolutely normal there could - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 not have been any suspicion attributable to the appellant. He further submits that merely because a statement made during the deposition by PW1 and PW2 of appellant allegedly suggesting the body of the deceased to be cremated at the earliest, cannot be a circumstance to attribute guilt on the appellant. He submits except the aforesaid two circumstances the prosecution has absolutely not brought any material evidence on record to point out the guilt of the accused. He further submits that the trial Court erred in relying upon the RFSL report produced at Ex.P15 which is inconclusive inasmuch as the same is not supported by serology report. Thus, he submits entire case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and surmises and without any semblance of truth. Hence, seeks for allowing the appeal. 10. The learned SPP-II for the respondent-State justifying the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court submitted that PW1 and PW2 who are the relatives of the deceased have deposed with regard to the motive - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 and conduct of the appellant. He submits except the appellant there was no one around the deceased at the time and date of the incident. That it is the appellant who informed PW1 about the deceased. He submits that since the appellant had the special knowledge of the circumstances and not having discharged burden, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard both side. Perused the records. 12. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?" 13. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The complaint as per Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 was on suspicion of appellant committing murder of the deceased. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 14. PW1- Sharada/elder sister of the deceased who filed the complaint as per Ex.P1 has stated that after their marriage the appellant and the deceased stayed with her for six to seven months. That they used to frequently quarrel. Therefore, she had asked them to leave her house. That on 26.10.2015 at about 5.30 p.m., appellant informed her regarding the death of the deceased. As such, she along with PW2-Anand Naik rushed to the house of the appellant and noticed ligature mark and injury on the neck of the deceased. That the appellant went to bring doctor and did not return even for one hour. Somebody had brought the doctor, who after examining the deceased declared him dead. She further deposed that the appellant had insisted to cremate the body of the deceased in the same village or in the village of PW1 and not to inform the police. As such she suspected involvement of the appellant and accordingly informed to Venur Police and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. Thereafter, Police visited the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 spot and prepared the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. While examining the deceased's neck, yellow nylon particles were found. Before going to Police Station she saw yellow nylon rope outside the house and after returning from the station the rope was missing. However, police found the rope near the bush which was seized. She identified MOs.1 to 5 namely yellow nylon rope, pant, shirt and under garment of the deceased. 15. In the cross-examination, PW1 has stated that appellant had informed her of she working in a Cashew factory between 7.30 a.m., and 7.30 p.m. That there was no complaint lodged regarding quarrel between appellant and the deceased and she also did not advise them. That when both appellant and deceased were staying with her, they were in good terms. That the deceased was a drunkard. Even when they stayed separately they used to visit her house and were in good terms. She admits that appellant had bought Dr.Santosh and none of the neighbours were present. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 16. PW2-Anand Naik, who is the relative of the deceased has reiterated the version of PW1. 17. PW3 is the witness to the inquest mahazar at Ex.P3, he has deposed regarding he noticing the injuries over the neck of dead body of Harisha and did not notice other injuries. 18. PW4-Honnayya Naika has deposed with regard to PW1 and PW2 coming to his shop and narrating the incident. He has also reiterated the version of PW1 and PW2. 19. PW.5-Vijaya Bhat witness to the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 has spoken about the seizure of MO1-Nylon Rope and MO2- pieces of Nylon rope. 20. Jayaram Poojary- PW6 deposed about he lending money to deceased-Harisha and having gone to his house two days prior to the incident for seeking back his money. He states that appellant and deceased were quarrelling. He further states that appellant used to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 telephone him frequently and does not know the character about the appellant, he denies that he had physical contact with the appellant and he never gave money to the appellant. He states that even on the date of incident he saw the appellant and deceased quarrelling with each other. In the cross-examination, he denies that appellant and deceased never quarreled, he also denied he giving statement before police as per Ex.P4. 21. Obayya Poojary-PW7 stated that he used to visit the house of the appellant and at that time he used to speak to the appellant. He further states that he and appellant had no physical contact and character of the appellant was not good and that many men used to come to the house of the appellant. 22. PW8- Prashanth/Auto driver has spoken about PW1 and PW2 and the appellant travelling in his auto on the date of incident. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 23. PW9- Shivananda/auto driver deposed that on 20.06.2014 at 12.30 p.m., husband of the appellant brought the appellant and child and asked him to drop them at Panjalabailu in his auto. Accordingly, he dropped them at the said place. In the cross- examination, he deposed that Harisha told him to drop the appellant and child at Moodukodi village and stated the same before the police. 24. PW10-Latha Jain and appellant used to stay in the rented house belonging to the same owner. She stated that on 20.06.2014 at 5.30 p.m. the appellant approached the owner and said that her husband is not keeping well. In the cross examination, she admitted that appellant used to work in cashew factory but she does not say about the timings. 25. PW11-Dr.Mahabalesh Shetty/ Head of Forensic Department deposed that he conducted Post mortem on body of the deceased on 21.06.2014 between 11.15 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 a.m., to 1 p.m. and noticed five injuries over the body and he collected rope, fibers found on the neck of deceased, noticed presence of loose hair around 42 cm and collected the same. He further stated that death was due to manual strangulation and further issued Ex.P6 (PM report). He deposed about several nail and tip of finger marks mentioned in injuries No.2 to 5. He further deposed about MO6 containing rope fibers found around the neck of the deceased corresponding to ligature material, MO7 containing nail scraping and clipping of right hand, MO8 containing nail scraping and clipping of left hand and MO9 loose hair around 42 cms and collected the same and sealed them in packets. He stated that ligature mark found on the body of the deceased was caused by MO1(rope). 26. In the cross-examination, PW11 deposed that that there are other injuries found on the dead body of the deceased and if two persons struggle with each other - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 and rolled on floor there may be possibility of sustaining multiple injuries. 27. PW12- Dr.Santosh Rego stated that PW2 had come to his clinic on 20.06.2014 at 6.30 p.m. requesting him to come to his brother's house. As he was busy in attending patients he could not attend. At about 6.40 p.m. the appellant had come to his clinic and asked him to examine her husband who had fallen in the house. He accompanied the appellant to the house of the deceased and on examination he noticed that Harisha was dead. 28. PW13- Vishwanatha Pai stated that he and deceased had financial transactions and he was not in contact with the appellant and did not had any financial transactions with the appellant. 29. PW16- B.R.Lingappa/Investigation officer stated that on 21.06.2014 he recorded further statement of PW1, visited the spot and drew Ex.P2, visited the mortuary and drew Ex.P3(inquest), recorded the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 statements of other witnesses. He sent rope, nail clippings, two pieces of nylon rope, clothes from dead body and loose hair from hospital to RFSL. Took photos of dead body( Ex.P9, 10 to 13, 14) and identified MO1 to 5 and 6 to 9. 30. In the cross-examination, he states that when he went to the spot around 50-60 people had gathered and there were ligature mark over the neck of the deceased and no marks over the remaining parts of the body. 31. PW17- Abdul Khader/PSI has spoken about PW1 going to the police station on 20.06.2014 and informing him that her brother Harisha was sleeping and there is no response from him. That he recorded statement of PW1 in Tulu language through PW15 and got it translated into Kannada language and thereafter registered the case and sent the FIR to Court. He identifies his signature on Ex.P1 and Ex.P8. He states that appellant was secured in - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 police station with help of lady staff due to suspicion on appellant. 32. PW18- Dr.Srividya/FSL expert is the witness to Ex.P15 and she stated that she examined three articles namely; A. Yellow color nylon fiber pieces found sticking to two adhesive tape pieces and said to have been collected around the neck corresponding to ligature material given, E. Yellow colour nylon rope with a knot on one side. G. Two yellow colour nylon fiber pieces. 33. From the scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution as noted hereinabove, only three circumstances have been placed on record, namely, (i). Appellant/accused purportedly asking PWs.1, 2 and 4 to cremate the body of the deceased and not to inform to the police; (ii). PW.9-Auto driver dropping the appellant and her child at the house of the deceased at 12.30 p.m.; and (iii). recovery of 42 cm of long female hair from the dead body of the deceased. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 34. The trial Court accepting the evidence on the aforesaid circumstances has come to the conclusion that the conduct and intent of the appellant was established by the prosecution and recovery of 42 cm female hair was sufficient enough to convict the appellant. 35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jabir and others Vs. State of Uttarkhand reported in (2023) 16 SCC 111, dealing with case of circumstantial evidence and case involving 'last seen' theory at paragraph Nos.22, 24, 26 and 27 has held as under: ''22. A basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. These were so stated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda wherein the Court, after quoting from Hanumant, observed that: (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case, SCC p. 185, paras 153-154.) - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahahrao Bobude v. State of Maharashtra wherein the following observations were made: (SCC p. 807, para 19) 19. ... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." These panchsheel precepts, so to say, are now fundamental rules, iterated time and again, and require adherence not only for their precedential weight, but as the only safe - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 bases upon which conviction in circumstantial evidence cases can soundly rest. '' …… 24. This Court is also of the opinion that apart from the above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant-accused with the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court, that the "last seen" doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the "last seen" circumstance. … .. 36. Similarly, in the case of Padman Bibhar Vs. State of Odisha reported in 2025 SCC Online 1190 at paragraph Nos.19 and 20 has held as under: '' 19. The present is a case where except for the evidence of 'last seen together' there is no other incriminating material against the appellant. 20. This Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan has held that evidence on 'last seen together' is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on the basis of 'last seen together' without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The following passage from the judgment in paras 12 and 15 can be profitably referred: "12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 15. The theory of last seen the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588" 37. In the instant case, the prosecution has not placed anything on record with regard to motive for commission of offence. Merely because the appellant had allegedly asked PWs.1, 2 and 4 to cremate the body of the deceased without informing the same to the police, it is also to be noted that PWs.1, 2 and 4 are relatives of deceased. In the absence of any further iota of evidence indicating guilt of the appellant, their such evidence without corroboration cannot be the basis to conclude the guilt of the appellant. 38. Even though, evidence of PW.9-Auto driver is heavily relied upon as a ''last seen theory'', apparently the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 same in the absence of any corroborative evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellant. Another aspect of the matter is that PW9-Auto driver has not deposed that both appellant and deceased traveled in his auto along with the child. He has merely deposed that upon the instructions of the deceased he had dropped the appellant and their child at their house. Therefore, said deposition cannot be said to fall within the ambit of `last seen' theory. 39. The medical and scientific evidence does not in any manner whatsoever point towards the guilt of the appellant. Though, the M0s.7, 8 and 9 being the nail scrapping and clippings of the deceased and 42 cm long female hair were purportedly recovered, no piece of evidence is placed on record to establish the link of the said M.O.s either with the appellant or to the crime. The trial Court extensively adverted to the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein she has stated as under: - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 '' ಾನು ಪ ನ ೆ ೆ 7-30 ೆ ೇರುೕಜ ಾಾೆೆ ೆಲಸೆ ೋಗು ದು, ಸಂ!ೆ 5-30ೆ ಮೆೆ ಬರು $ೆನು. ಾಂಕ 20-6-2014 ರಂದು ಾನು ಎಂ ನಂ'ೆ ೆ ೆ 7-30 ೆ ೆಲಸೆ ೋ(ದು ಸಂ!ೆ 5-30 ಗಂ)ೆೆ ಮೆೆ *ಾ+ಾಸು, ಬಂ$ೆನು. ಆ ಸಮಯದ/0 ನನ1 ಮೆ ಾ(ಲು 'ೆ2ೆ ದು, ಮೆಯ ಒಳಗ5ೆ ನನ1 ಗಂಡ ಹ8ೕಶನು ಮಲ(ದ :; ಯ/0 ಇದರು. ಾನು ಹಲವ> ಾ8 ಎ?ಸಲು ೋದರೂ ಏಳ$ೇ ಇ$ಾಗ ಾಬ8ೊಂಡು ನನ1 ೆ2ೆಮೆಯವ2ಾದ ಲ'ಾ !ೈBರವರ/0 ಈ Dಷಯವನು1 : 5ಾಕFG ರವರನು1 ಕ2ೆದುೊಂಡು ಬರಲು *ೇಣೂ8ೆ ೋ( ಅ/0 5ಾ| ಸಂ'ೋJ ರವರನು1 ಕ2ೆದುೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಪ8ೕK: ೋL$ಾಗ ನನ1 ಗಂಡ ಹ8ೕಶರವರು ಮೃತ ಪOFರುವ>$ಾ( :ದರು.” 40. The trial Court referring to the deposition of PW.9-Auto Driver, of he allegedly dropping the appellant and the child at their house at 12.30 p.m. and no suggestion having been put to PW10 neighbour of appellant, has concluded that the appellant has failed to prove the plea of alibi. Accordingly, has drawn adverse inference against the appellant. It is settled principles of law that, plea of alibi cannot be the sole link or sole circumstance on which conviction could be passed. It is only when, all other links in the chain of circumstances are established by the prosecution can the plea of alibi be looked into to draw adverse inference. {Babudas Vs. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2003) 9 SCC 86}. Thus, the trial Court lost sight of these aspects of the matter. 41. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution not having established all the links in chain of circumstances, conviction handed over to the appellant by the trial Court merely on the basis of three weak circumstances noted hereinabove, is not sustainable. 42. Accordingly, following: ORDER (i). The appeal is allowed. (ii). The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.23/2015 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K Mangaluru is hereby set aside. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30354-DB CRL.A No. 1570 of 2018 (iii). Appellant/accused is acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. (iv). Bail bond of the accused and her sureties, if any shall stand cancelled. (v). Fine amount deposited, if any by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to her. (vi). The order of trial Court with regard to disposal of the properties and Section 357A Cr.P.C is maintained. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN/RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10