- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.326/2020 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1128/2019 (C) IN CRL.A No.326/2020 BETWEEN: HARISH S/O PAPANNA @ EGALODU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/AT JJ COLONY CHINTAMANI TOWN CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 125. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SYED ZAHEERUDDIN BAREED, ADVOCATE) IN CRL.A NO.1128/2019 BETWEEN: SRINIVASA @ MARATI SEENA SO LATE THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS LABOURER RESIDENT OF J J COLONY CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 125 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. DINESH KUMAR K. RAO, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHINTAMANI TOWN POLICE STATION CHICKBALLAPURA-560 210. (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001). …RESPONDENT (COMMON) (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP) THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 07.08.2018 AND SENTENCE DATED 10.08.2018, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKABALLAPURA, SITTING AT CHINTHAMANI IN S.C.NO.71/2016, CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECITONS 448, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, 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 MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) These appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.71/2016 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chickballapura, sitting at Chintamani challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.326/2020 was accused No.1 and appellant in Crl.A.No.1128/2019 was accused No.2 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, they are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. 3. The accused were prosecuted in the said case on the charge that due to some previous enmity, on 14.06.2016 at 1:30 a.m. both accused with the common intention of committing murder of Thabrej Khan @ Daddu, trespassed into his house, accused No.2 assaulted the victim with Punch/MO.4, fell him to the ground and accused No.1 stabbed him with the knife 4-5 times and committed his murder. 4. To prove the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P1 to P25 and MOs.1 to 12 were marked. After examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they did not lead any defence evidence. During the examination of PW.15, the trial Court got marked Ex.C.1. 5. The trial Court relying on the evidence of the eyewitnesses/PWs.1 to 4 and other evidence has convicted and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 sentenced the accused. The said judgment and order is challenged by accused Nos.1 and 2. 6. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri Syed Zaheeruddin Bareed for accused No.1 and Sri Dinesh Kumar K. Rao, learned Counsel for accused No.2: 7. PWs.1 to PW.4/eyewitnesses were the interested witnesses. The evidence of PW.1 falsifies the fact of PWs.2 to 4 being eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.1 claims that he suspected the overt act of the accused and he kept watch, but he did not inform the police. That creates doubt about his narration of the incident. There was delay in dispatching MLC intimation to the police station. Absolutely, there was no motive so far as accused No.1 to connect him to the crime. So far as accused No.2, even as per the prosecution, he only assaulted with Punch and the injuries inflicted by him have not caused the death. Therefore, Section 302 IPC is not attracted against him. There are contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Deceased himself was rowdy-sheeter and the accused were falsely implicated in the case. Trial Court without judicious appreciation of evidence, has reached the erroneous - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 conclusion. Hence the impugned judgment be set aside and accused be acquitted. Submissions of Smt. Sowmya R, learned HCGP for State: 8. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4/eyewitnesses show that the appellants/accused with common intention have trespassed into the house of victim and assaulted him. The presence of PWs.1 to 4 at the scene of offence is probable and natural. PW.1 not filing the complaint regarding the earlier incident, does not falsify their evidence. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 clearly shows the motive of the accused. Further, on the basis of voluntary statement of accused there was recovery of weapons of offence (knives) and clothes of the accused. Such seizure was established by the evidence of the panch witnesses. FSL report shows that the weapons, clothes of the accused and deceased were stained with ‘A’ blood group. Accused failed to explain the said circumstance. The trial Court on judicious appreciation of the evidence and other circumstances has convicted and sentenced the accused. The impugned judgment and order does not warrant interference of this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 9. On considering the submissions of both side and examination of materials on record, the point that arises for determination is “whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable?” Analysis: 10. The fact that PW.1 was elder brother, PW.2 is sister-in-law of deceased, PW.3 was resident of Chintamani and PW.4 was working in the ice factory in Chintamani were not disputed. It is also not disputed that Thabrej Khan @ Daddu met with homicidal death on 14.06.2016 at 1:30 a.m near his house. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 11(i). That the victim was doing Chicken Kabab business near Patalamma Temple of Agrahara in Chintamani town and accused No.1 was working under him. The accused had a grouse against the deceased on the ground that he was extracting more work from them, but was paying a very meager wages. In that regard, on 13.06.2016 at 08:00 p.m., the accused had quarrelled with deceased near his Kabab shop and that was pacified by PW.1. On 14.06.2016 around 01:30 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 a.m. the accused banged the door of house of Thabrej Khan @ Daddu. Listening to the same, PW.1 came out of his house, found accused abusing the victim in foul language and uttering that they will kill him, accused No.2 assaulted the victim with Punch/MO.4 and the victim fell down. At that time, accused No.1, who was armed with two knives/MOs.1 and 5, stabbed on the back and chest of the victim 4-5 times with MO.1, dropped one knife at the scene of offence and both the accused escaped. Listening to the commotion, PWs.2 to 4 came to the scene of offence and they also witnessed accused assaulting the victim. By 2.00 a.m. they shifted the victim to Government Hospital, Chintamani and he was declared brought dead. ii) Then PW.1 filed complaint as per Ex.P1 before PW.15 who registered the same in Crime No.113/2016 under FIR/Ex.P20 and handed over the further investigation to PW.17. PW.17 visited the spot, conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. During the spot mahazar, he seized sample tar, bloodstained tar and knife. He conducted inquest mahazar, recorded statements of witnesses and got subjected the dead body for medical examination. On arresting the accused and on the basis of their voluntary statements, he recovered the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 incriminating articles namely the knife, Punch and clothes of the accused. He seized the clothes of the deceased which were received after the postmortem examination. He referred the incriminating articles for FSL and his successor on conducting the further investigation, filed charge sheet. 12. The case of the prosecution was based on the following set of evidence: i) Eyewitnesses/PWs.1 to 4; ii) Recovery of knife under spot mahazar/Ex.P2; iii) Recovery of knife at the instance of accused No.1 under mahazar/Ex.P9 dated 14.06.2016; iv) Recovery of the bloodstained shirt, jeans pant of accused No.2 and Punch used by accused No.2 under mahazar Ex.P3; v) Recovery of bloodstained shirt and jeans pant of accused No.1 under mahazar Ex.P19 dated 14.06.2016; vi) Medical evidence and FSL evidence. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 Reg. Eyewitnesses: 13. PW.1/brother of the deceased and the complainant deposed about the victim carrying on chicken kabab business and accused No.1 working as assistant under the victim in the business. He also speaks about accused Nos.1 and 2 quarrelling with the deceased on 13.06.2016 at 08:00 p.m. near the shop of the victim on the ground that the victim has not paid the money and on listening to the same, he going there and pacifying the quarrel. He further deposed that since the accused were quarreling with his brother and had warned him that they will see to it, he was alert and he found accused roaming around the house of the victim 2-3 times. He further deposed that at 01:30 a.m. on hearing the accused abusing the victim, he went to the place and found accused No.1 hitting the victim with a Punch and accused No.2 stabbing with knife and by that time, PWs.2 and 4 came to the spot. He spoke about PW.3 and one Amzad along with them shifting the victim to the hospital, he filing the complaint and police conducting spot mahazar etc. 14. PW.2 deposed in line with the evidence of PW.1 about accused quarreling with victim on 13.06.2016 at 08.00 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 p.m. and they roaming around the house of the victim. She deposed that at 01:30 a.m. when she was working in the ice factory along with PW.4, they heard the cries of the victim and rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident. PW.4 speaks in line with PW.2 about they witnessing the incident. In the cross- examination of none of these witnesses, they being the residents of said locality, was not denied. The probability of they coming and witnessing the incident, were not impeached. Further the fact of PW.3 a resident of Chintamani town deposed that on 13.06.2016, when he was returning from his work and proceeding near Patalamma temple at 01:00 a.m. he found the accused quarrelling with the deceased and by the time he reached them, the accused assaulted the victim by Punch and knives. He also spoke about the presence of PWs.1,2 and 4 at the scene of offence and himself with PWs.1,2 and 4 along with one Amzad shifting the victim to government hospital, Chintamani. 15. Ex.C1/Medico legal intimation issued by duty Doctor of General Hospital Chintamani was marked during the cross examination of PW.15 on the Court question. The said document shows that the victim was brought dead to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 Chintamani Government Hospital on 14.06.2016 at around 02.00 a.m. with the history of assault near Patalamma temple. Absolutely no cross examination was conducted on Ex.C1. That corroborates the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 that victim suffered homicidal injuries at the spot spoken by PWs.1 to 4. 16. So far as nature of death, in the evidence of none of the witnesses’ death being homicidal was disputed. As against that, it was suggested that the victim was a rowdy Sheeter, his wife had deserted him and he had differences with her. He was involved in the murder of one police head constable, therefore somebody might have murdered him. 17. As already noted, the probability of the presence of PWs.1 to 4 at the scene of offence was not impeached. Merely because PWs.1 and 2 were the relatives of the deceased, they cannot be branded as the interested witnesses. To claim that they were the interested witnesses, the accused should have demonstrated that their conviction would enure any benefit to PWs.1 and 2 or PWs.3 and 4, which was not done. There was no reason for PWs.1 and 2 to shield true culprit, if it was somebody else and to falsely implicate accused Nos.1 and 2. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 18. So far as accused No.2, though much was argued that no motive was established against him, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 shows that he had also come with accused No.1 and quarreled with the victim. Even otherwise when the case is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses, motive takes a back seat and proof of the same is not much material. It is also to be noted that soon after the incident, PW.1 took the victim to the hospital, thereafter he filed complaint/Ex.P1 before PW.15. The complaint was filed at 08.00 a.m. in the morning. The FIR/Ex.P20 shows that the same was delivered to the Magistrate at 08:20 a.m. on the same day. Thus, there was no much delay in filing the complaint or delivery of FIR. The concern of PWs.1 and 2 at that stage will be to first get medical care for the victim. Having regard to the same and nature of the crime, 6 hours gap in filing the complaint cannot be considered as delay. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the trial Court was justified in accepting the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. Reg. recovery: 19. The evidence of PW.17/Investigating Officer and PW.5/panch witness shows that, on registering FIR, PW.17 took - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 up the investigation, he visited the spot. On 14.06.2016 he conducted a spot mahazar between 09:30 and 10.45 a.m. During the spot mahazar, he collected knife/MO.1 at scene of offence, bloodstained tar pieces and plain tar pieces/MOs.2 and 3 in the presence of PW.5/panch witness and regarding that, Ex.P2 the mahazar was drawn. 20. According to PW.17/Investigating Officer on 14.06.2016 at between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. he arrested accused No.1 and recorded his voluntary statement. Accused produced MOs.11 and 12/blood stained shirt and jeans pant worn by him and Investigating Officer seized the same under the mahazar Ex.P19. Except accepting his signature on Ex.P19, PW.13 did not support the proceeding under Ex.P19. However, PW.16 supported the said proceedings. His evidence was not discredited in the cross examination. There was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.17/Investigating Officer regarding the same. 21. PW.17 deposed that at the same day at about 5:00 to 5:30 p.m accused No.2 was arrested and his voluntary statement was recorded and accused No.2 produced the shirt, jeans pant and Punch/MO.4. They were seized under Mahazar - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 Ex.P3 in the presence of PW.5. PW.5 supported the proceedings under Ex.P3 and the seizure of clothes worn by the accused. PW.17 further deposed that after aforesaid two mahzars, accused No.1 led him and panchas to electrical pole situated at Chintamani silk market and produced a knife/MO.5 and he seized the same under mahazar Ex.P9 between 6:15 and 6:45 p.m. in the presence of PW.9 the panch witnesses. PW.9/panch witness has supported the proceeding under Ex.P9 and recovery of knife and seizure of same by Investigating Officer. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in holding the said circumstance was proved. Reg. FSL evidence: 22. The evidence of PW.11/in-charge Police Inspector of Chintamani police station shows that after the postmortem examination P.C.239 of their police station brought and produced the clothes of the deceased and he sent the same for FSL examination through one P.C Madesha. His evidence that he received FSL report Exs.P15 and P16 regarding the incriminating materials which were sent for FSL was not denied in his cross examination. The FSL Report Ex.P16 shows that the knife, clothes of the accused and deceased were stained with - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36378-DB CRL.A No.326/2020 C/W CRL.A No.1128/2019 ‘A’ group blood. This circumstance was not explained by the accused. Moreover, the eyewitnesses/PWs.1 to 4 stood the test of cross-examination. That itself was sufficient for placing the conviction. 23. So far as the contention that against accused No.2 Section 302 of IPC is not attracted, he was charged for Section 302 for sharing the common intention with accused No.1. The evidence of the eyewitnesses shows that, first accused No.2 assaulted the victim with Punch and fell him to the ground. That facilitated accused No.1 to stab the victim multiple times. Therefore, we are not persuaded to accept the contention that Section 302 of IPC is not attracted against accused No.2. Upon thorough re-appreciation of the evidence and materials, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13