- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100212 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, M.M. HALLI POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.) AND: M. KOTRESHA S/O. M. LALITHAMMA AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: 6TH WARD, M.M. HALLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 20.01.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) IN S.C.NO.5059 OF 2014 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.04.29 12:22:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal 20.01.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.5059/2014 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari [sitting at Hosapete] [for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”]. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are the Mariyammanahalli Police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the accused having affair with the deceased Mahadevi made her to believe by etching her name on the hand and later refused to marry her and told that she was used only for enjoyment and told her to die. On 14.04.2014 at 02:30 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 p.m. in Mariyammanahalli Government Hospital the accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide which resulted in the deceased Mahadevi consuming pesticide at about 05:30 p.m., and died at 07:30 p.m. while under treatment in the hospital at Hospete and thereby the accused committed offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 4. After filing charge sheet, case was registered against the accused in C.C. No.135/2014 and thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in S.C. No.5059/2014. On appearance of the accused, on hearing the charges, the Trial Judge has framed the charges for the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC. Same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all 18 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 18 and 22 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P22. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused had totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. The learned Additional SPP Sri. M.B. Gundawade submits that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law and facts and evidence on record. The accused had a love affair with the deceased. Accordingly, the accused had etched her name on his right hand as well as letters “K.M.” on his left shoulder by way of tattoo. This evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. PWs.8 and 9 had stated before the Trial Court that on 14.04.2014 at about 02:00 p.m. when the deceased along with her sister went to hospital, where accused was there had - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 asked the accused to marry her, the accused refused to marry her and also abused her and abetted her to go somewhere and die. The said conversation has been witnessed and overheard by PWs.8 and 9 and they have also supported the case of the prosecution. This aspect of the matter has not been properly read and considered by the Trial Court. 7. PW12 is the evidence of last seen the deceased and the accused on the date of the incident while they were proceeding towards the bus stand. The said fact is also not considered by the Trial Court in its proper perspective and thereby erred in acquitting the accused by giving much importance to the minor contradictions and improvements found in the prosecution evidence. The learned Additional SPP would further submit that PWs.1 to 4 and 10 have categorically and specifically stated before the Trial Court that there was a love affair between the deceased Mahadevi and the accused. The said evidence has also not been considered by the Trial Court while - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 assessing the evidence on record. The Doctor PWs.14 and 16 have stated before the Trial Court that the deceased died due to consumption of organo phosphorus poison insecticide. This evidence has also not been considered by the Trial Court and thereby erred in acquitting the accused. Though the material witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety, the Trial Court by holding that the evidence of Police witnesses, Scientific Officer and Doctor would have come to the aid of the prosecution only if it would have established the guilt of the accused with the help of the independent and cogent witnesses, and accordingly held that there are number of material contradictions and omissions forthcoming to the version of prosecution witnesses. The said reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is contrary to law as the evidence of related and interested witnesses has to be assessed with great care and caution. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Hence, same suffers from legal infirmities that require re-appreciation at the hands - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 of this Court. On all these grounds, the learned Additional SPP sought for allowing the appeal. 8. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent Sri. Srinivas B. Naik would submit that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely that there are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for dismissal of this appeal. 9. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of records, the following points that would arise for my consideration are as follows: i. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court to 1intercede? ii. What order? 10. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.i – in the negative - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 Point No.ii – as per final order 11. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 12. In the case of Motiram Padu Joshi & Others v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus: “23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:- “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 13. In the case of Munishamappa & others v. State of Karnataka & Connected Appeals reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under: “16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well- established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …” - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 14. In the case of Hari Ram & others v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis-appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…” 15. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 16. In the case of Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” 17. It is alleged in the complaint that on 15.04.2014 at about 01:30 a.m., that her daughter Mahadevi died on - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 14.04.2014 at about 05:30 p.m. by consuming poison. She died due to love affair with M.Kotesha or due to some other matter. While the deceased Mahadevi was alive, she has stated that she was having a love affair with M.Kotesha. On 14.04.2014 at about 02:00 p.m., the said Mahadevi along with her younger sister Rekha approached said M.Kotesha in the premises of Government Hospital at Mariyammanahalli and asked him to marry her as her mother came to know about their love affair. The accused stated she is not a new girl to him and he is having love affair with so many girls and he only enjoy the girls and further stated not to have a hope of marriage with him. When she enquired with him about her life, he told “you go anywhere and die” by hanging or consuming poison. She suffered mentally due to the act of the accused. On that day at about 05:00 p.m. she came to the house and took Rs.10/- from her mother and went to the shop and at 05:30 p.m. she came to house along with her friend Durgamma and she stated as she consumed poison and immediately her mother carried said Mahadevi in an - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 autorickshaw to Government Hospital at Mariyammanahalli, then admitted her to Government Hospital at Hosapete for further treatment where she died at 07:30 p.m. on the same day at 01:30 a.m., the complainant lodged a compliant at Mariyammanahalli Police Station and a case was registered in UDR No.2/2014 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, in respect of the same incident, the complainant has lodged another complaint on 24.04.2014 after knowing the true facts that accused M.Kotesha is responsible for the death of her daughter [Mahadevi]. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 306 of IPC. 18. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, in all, 18 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 18 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P22. 19. CW1 – Basamma, examined as PW1 said to be the complainant and also the mother of the deceased, has - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 deposed in her evidence that the accused had love affair with her daughter Mahadevi. She has advised her daughter in this regard, that it is not correct. About an year back, one day, her daughter asked Rs.10/- and she gave the said amount. Then she went to the town and purchased the pesticide and consumed. But she did not tell the same to them. She told the same to her friend Durgamma. Durgamma brought Mahadevi to her house. She was upset, and had fallen on the bed. After enquiring she called neighbours and then shifted her daughter to the Government Hospital, Mariyammanahalli and then shifted to the Hospital at Hosapete, where the Doctors had declared brought dead. Then she lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. She has deposed that CW4 – Renuka, CW16 – Mahantesh, CW15 – Hanumantha, deceased Mahadevi and the accused were present at the Government Hospital. The deceased had asked the accused to marry her, then the accused told her that she is not a new girl to him and he is having love affair with many girls and he only enjoy girls and further stated not to have hope of marriage with him. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 For which she asked him to about her future life, in turn he stated to go anywhere and die by hanging or consuming poison. Due to the attitude of the accused, she suffered mentally and committed suicide by consuming poison. Further she has deposed that he had put the name of the deceased on his hand and she has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P2. Thereafter, Police came to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P6. 20. CW2 – Suryanarayana said to be the attestor to the inquest panchanama examined as PW2. He has deposed in his evidence as to the contents of inquest panchanama conducted by the Police as per Ex.P13. 21. CW5 – Bharmappa, younger sister of the complainant examined as PW3. She has deposed in her evidence that at about one year back, she came to know that the accused had refused to marry Mahadevi. Hence, she consumed poison and died in the hospital. She went to the Government Hospital, Police had conducted inquest - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 panchanama and the accused is the main cause for the death of Mahadevi. 22. CW6 – Swamy Hanumavva said to be the eyewitness examined as PW4. She has deposed in his evidence that she knows Mahadevi and accused. The accused had love affair with deceased Mahadevi. He is the relative of the deceased. The accused had abused her. Mahadevi asked the accused to marry. Mahadevi told him not to reveal as to the love affair with the accused to her mother. At about two years back, the deceased went to the hospital and asked the accused to marry. Then accused told her that she is not a new girl to him. He had seen several girls and he asked the deceased to go anywhere and die. Therefore, the deceased had consumed poison. Same was revealed by younger sister of the deceased. Then immediately he took autorickshaw and shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, where the Doctors told that she was brought dead. The accused is the main cause for the death of the deceased. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 23. CW10 – Ravi said to be the attestor to the mahazar witnesses, who has examined as PW5. He has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P6. 24. CW11 – Rekha examined as PW6 but the accused counsel has objection to examine her as her name is Shilpa. Then the Court has deferred her evidence. 25. CW12 – Durgama said to be the eyewitness examined PW7. In her evidence, she has stated that she knows the complainant – Basamma and the deceased Mahadevi was her friend. Accused is his elder brother. They were studying in PUC. The deceased has not revealed her personal matters to her. She does not know as to the cause of death of Mahadevi. This witness is treated as hostile witness with the permission of the Court and was cross-examined by the learned Additional PP. Even in her cross-examination, she has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.P14. 26. CW11 – Rekha the elder sister of deceased Mahadevi, said to be the eyewitness examined as PW8. She has deposed in her evidence that the deceased Mahadevi is her elder sister. She knows the accused. They were residing in same locality. The deceased was studying in second year PUC and she had love affair with the accused. About one and a half year back she went to the Government Hospital along with her elder sister Mahadevi. Accused was there. Deceased had asked the accused to marry her. Then the accused had refused to marry and stated that he is having affair with many girls and further told to the deceased to go anywhere and die by hanging. Then they returned to their house. Her elder sister consumed poison, then she was shifted to the Government Hospital and she died on the way to the hospital. The accused is the main cause for her death. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 27. CW15 – Hanumantha said to be the eye witness examined as PW9. He has deposed in his evidence that he knows the accused and the deceased. He came to know about the love affair between the accused and the deceased. At about two years back, when he went to the town, the accused and the deceased were standing in the premises of the Hospital and he was standing near the compound wall. The accused and the deceased were arguing. The deceased asked the accused to marry her. He refused to marry and told her to go anywhere and die. At 05:30 p.m. he came to know about the death of the deceased by consuming poison. He went to the Hospital and came to know that the accused is main cause for the death of Mahadevi. 28. CW17 – Ramanjaneya, the father of the deceased, examined as PW10. He has deposed in his evidence that the complainant is his wife, deceased is his daughter. Her daughter failed in second year PUC exam and she was staying in the house. Since two years she - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 was loving the accused. At about two years back, at 02:00 p.m., Rekha and Mahadevi went to the Government Hospital. Mahadevi had conversation with the accused and asked the accused to marry her. Then he refused and told the deceased you go anywhere and die. At about 05:30 hours, he came to know as to the consumption of poison by the deceased and at about 06:30 hours she died. The accused had put the name of the deceased on his hands. The accused is the main cause for the death of the deceased Mahadevi. 29. CWs.22, 23, 25 and 24 examined as PWs.11, 15, 17 and 18, who have deposed as to their respective investigation. 30. CW16 – Mahantesh examined as PW12 said to be the eyewitness has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even in his cross-examination made by Public Prosecutor after treating him as hostile witness, he has categorically denied the statement said to have been - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.P15. 31. CW19 – Siddalingaiah Swamy examined as PW13. He has deposed as to the issuance of the khata extract at the request of Mariyammanahalli Police as per Ex.P16. 32. CW20 – Dr. P.M. Nagaraj examined as PW20 has deposed as to the FSL report as per Ex.P17. 33. CW21 – Dr. Kanakappa examined as PW16 has deposed as to the conducting of postmortem examination of the deceased and also has deposed as to the postmortem report Ex.P20. 34. On careful scrutiny of the aforesaid witnesses, it is crystal clear that the deceased has consumed pesticide and died on the same day i.e., on 15.04.2014. In this regard, PW1 – Basamma had lodged a complaint to the Police as per Ex.P1. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police registered a case in UDR No.2/2014 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and inquest panchanama was conducted on - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 the same day as per Ex.P13, and the Sub Inspector of Police has reported the same to the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Hosapete Taluk, Ballari District as per Ex.P21. In Ex.P21, the Magistrate has not endorsed as to the receipt of UDR report. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything in this regard. After registration of the case as UDR, the Police shall immediately give intimation to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner or by what weapon or instrument [if any] such marks appear to have been inflicted and the report shall be signed by the Police Officer and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub- Divisional Magistrate as required under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer has not complied this mandatory provision and has not placed any material as to the compliance of said provisions. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 35. After lapse of 9 days from the date of registration of UDR No.2/2014, the same complainant who has lodged a compliant on 15.04.2014 as per Ex.P1 – Basamma has lodged another complaint to the Police as per Ex.P2 alleging that due to abetment by this accused, her daughter has committed suicide by consuming poison. On the basis of this compliant, the Police have registered the case in Crime No.51/2014 against the accused for the commission of offences under Sections 306 and 504 of IPC. 36. PW1 – Basamma had not stated anything as to why she has not disclosed the name of the accused at the time of filing complaint as per Ex.P1. It is interesting to note here that in the second complaint filed by PW1 as per Ex.P2 in which it is stated that she came to know as to the real cause of death of deceased through her daughter Rekha, Hanumantha and Mahantesh, examined as PWs.8, 9 and 12 have not supported to the case of the prosecution. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 37. PWs.8 and 9 have not whispered anything as to why they have not informed as to the alleged abetment made by the accused soon after the death of the deceased. But during the course of cross-examination of PW8, she has clearly stated that the accused has not abused to the deceased and she was standing at some distance from the accused while her elder sister was talking with the accused. Further she has clearly admitted that except the matter of marriage, she did not hear anything. During the course of cross-examination of PW9 – Hanumantha, he has stated that he had knowledge as to the love affair of the accused with the deceased prior to this incident and he had seen them together. If really the material witnesses PWs.8 and 9 have witnessed as to the heated arguments / talks between the accused and the deceased, they would have informed the same to the mother PW1 on the same day or to the Police, but they have not done so. Only after lapse of nine days, PW1 has received this information through the aforesaid witnesses PWs.8 and 9 and lodged a compliant as per Ex.P2 which - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 will create doubt as to the act of the accused and this evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1 are quite unnatural and the evidence of PWs.1, 8 and 9 also quite unnatural and against to the conduct of a prudent man. Hence, their evidence will create reasonable doubt about the alleged act of the accused. Apart from this, the prosecution has not made out grounds to constitute the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC and also Section 107 of the IPC. 38. On re-consideration, re-examination and re- appreciation of the entire evidence on record and keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to supra, I do not find any material to convict the accused for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Accordingly, I do not find any error / illegality / infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the negative. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5141 CRL.A No. 100212 of 2017 Regarding Point No.2: 39. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Appeal is dismissed; ii) Judgment of acquittal passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari [sitting at Hosapete] in S.C. No.5059/2014 dated 20.01.2017 is confirmed. iii) Registry to send the Trial Court records along with the copy of this Judgment to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSH / Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7