- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH 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.586/2019 (C) BETWEEN: MANJUNATHA S/O MARTHANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC: AUTO-DRIVER R/AT LOKIKERE VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577 002 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI P.D.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR HADADI POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577 002 NOW REP. BY THE STATE P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.10.2018 & 03.11.2018, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.20/2017, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS S 498A, 302 AND 309 OF IPC ETC. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 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) Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused in S.C.No.20/2017 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere has preferred this appeal. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. The accused was tried in S.C No.20/2017 on the charge that having married to Savita since 18 years, he had subjected her to physical and mental cruelty suspecting her fidelity. On 26.09.2016 at 4:30 p.m in the house situated at Lokikere village, Davanagere Taluk, accused picked up quarrel with his wife imputing infidelity, assaulted her with chopper on her neck, head, body and committed her murder. Then he attempted to commit suicide by slitting his neck with the same chopper. 3. In support of the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to 27 were examined, Exs.P1 to P28 and MOs.1 to 9 were marked. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 After recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused did not lead any defence evidence. 4. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted the accused for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 309 of IPC and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine as follows: Sl. No Offence under Section Sentence Fine amount in Rs. Default sentence 1 498A of IPC SI for 2 years 5,000/- SI for 3 months 2 302 of IPC Life imprisonment 25,000/- SI for 8 months 3 309 of IPC SI for 6 months - - 5. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri P.D Subramanya, learned Counsel for appellant/accused: 6. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. PWs.9 and 10/children of the victim and the accused were cited as eyewitnesses. But their evidence shows that they were not the eyewitnesses. The evidence on record shows that the children of couple were staying with their grandparents. According to the prosecution, accused, deceased and mother of the accused were living together. But mother of the accused has not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 supported the prosecution case. The evidence of PWs.5 to 8 regarding ill-treatment to the victim was not consistent and cogent, moreover they were interested witnesses. PWs.13 and 20/the independent witnesses who were cited as eyewitnesses, have turned hostile. When the eyewitnesses turned hostile and there were no independent witnesses to speak the overt acts of the accused, the trial Court was in error in accepting the evidence of interested witnesses and convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused. Hence the impugned judgment and order needs to be set aside. Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II: 7. Though, eyewitness/PW.13 turned hostile, evidence of PW.8/father of the victim shows that it was PW.13 who informed PW.8 about the incident. PW.13 admitted the said fact in his evidence. PW.13/neighbour of the accused and PW.20 the relative of the accused turned hostile apparently to help the accused. PWs.5 to 8 and 9 and 10 have consistently spoken about ill-treatment of the accused against the victim and his addiction to the alcohol. There was no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused. Merely because they are relatives, they cannot be branded as interested witnesses. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 death has taken place in the house of the accused. The accused has failed to explain how the victim and himself suffered injuries. The evidence of doctor/PW.15 shows that accused was brought to C.G hospital, Davangere by his relative with history of committing murder of his wife with chopper and slitting his own neck with the same chopper. The accused has failed to explain that circumstance. The trial Court on judicious appreciation of the evidence on record has convicted and sentenced the accused. The said order does not warrant interference of this Court. 8. On hearing both side and on examination of the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is “whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable?” Analysis 9. Some of the admitted facts of the case are as follows: That complainant/PW.8 and mother of the accused/PW.19, are brother and sister. Victim was daughter of PW.8. She was given in marriage to the accused 18 years prior to 26.09.2016. The couple had two children i.e., PWs.9 and 10, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 aged 10 years and 12 years respectively. The victim, accused and their children were residing in the house of PW.8 in Davanagere. Just about two months prior to the incident, the accused and victim had shifted to the house of accused situated in Lokikere village. On 26.09.2016 at 04:30 p.m. victim/Savita was found dead in the house of the accused in Lokikere village with injuries as mentioned in postmortem report/Ex.P17. The accused was admitted in C.G hospital, Davanagere as inpatient between 26.09.2016 and 05.10.2016 with injuries as shown in Ex.P16/wound certificate. 10. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) That the accused was addicted to alcohol, subjected the victim to physical and mental cruelty suspecting her fidelity. Therefore PW.8 had taken both the accused and the deceased along with their children/PWs.9 and 10 to his house at Davanagere and they were staying there. About two months prior to the incident, the accused and the victim had shifted to the house of the accused in Lokikere village. Still the accused continued tormenting the victim. On 26.09.2016 at 04:30 p.m. picking up quarrel with the victim, questioning her fidelity, accused assaulted her with chopper/MO.1 and committed her - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 murder. Then he attempted to commit suicide by slitting his neck with the same chopper. (ii) The incident was witnessed by PWs.13 and 20. PW.13 informed PW.8 about the incident, PW.8 rushed to the spot and on finding the victim dead and on learning about the incident, filed complaint as per Ex.P6 before PW.25/PSI of Hadadi Police Station. PW.25 based on Ex.P6 registered FIR as per Ex.P25 against the accused, visited spot, conducted the spot mahazar and inquest mahazar on the dead body of the victim, referred the dead body for postmortem examination, visited the hospital where the accused was admitted, seized the bloodstained clothes of the accused and deceased under mahazar Ex.P9 and he arrested the accused. On recording statements of the witnesses, collected the postmortem examination report and medical certificate of the accused. On completing investigation, he filed the charge sheet. 11. The case of the prosecution was based on the following set of evidence: (i) Evidence of PWs.13 and 20/eyewitnesses; (ii) Evidence of PWs.5 to 10/witnesses to the ill- treatment of the accused to the victim; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 (iii) PW.15/doctor who treated the accused in C.G hospital; (iv) Recovery of the weapon and clothes of the accused and deceased under the mahazars/Exs.P7 and P9; (v) The evidence of the official witnesses; and (vi) Medical evidence and FSL evidence. Reg. Motive: 12. PW.13 says in his evidence that his house situates at the distance of 300 meters from the house of the accused. However, he did not support the prosecution version that he witnessed the accused assaulting the victim. But he says that on the day of incident, when he was having tea in bus-stand of his village, he heard people speaking that there was some galata between the accused and his wife and she is murdered. He rushed to the house of the accused and found victim lying dead and he heard people saying that the accused has committed her murder, but he did not find the accused there. In his cross examination by the prosecution he admits that himself and PW.20/Kalkere Manjappa were proceeding near the house of the accused on 26.09.2016 at 04:30 p.m., but he denied the suggestion that on hearing the galata, they entered into the house, found the accused assaulting the victim and he - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 apprehending the accused. However he admits that he informed PW.8 about the murder of the victim. He also admits about the galata between the accused and the deceased. In his cross examination by the defence Counsel, though it was suggested he did not visit the house of the accused, that was denied by him. Even he informing PW.8 about the incident was reiterated. 13. PW.20/another eyewitness deposed that there are 4-5 houses between his house and the house of accused, at 05.00 p.m. on that day, when he came home, he found the dead body of Savita in the house of the accused and people had assembled there. But he denied having witnessed the accused assaulting the victim and giving statement to that effect before the police. According to the prosecution, he had showed the scene of offence to the police while drawing spot mahazar as per Ex.P7. This witness admitted his signature on Ex.P7 and police conducting mahazar and taking his signature on the same. But he pleaded his ignorance about police examining scene of offence. Still he admits that photograph of the dead body was taken during mahazar as per Ex.P8 and in that photograph, chopper lying at the scene of the offence is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 found. From the evidence of PW.20, it becomes clear that he is closely related to the accused, therefore, he was reluctant to speak against the accused. However, his presence at the scene of the offence stands corroborated by the evidence of PW.13/other eyewitness, who says that himself and PW.20 went to the scene of offence. The evidence of PW.13 that when they went to the spot, he learnt that accused has committed murder of victim, was not controverted in his cross examination. 14. PW.5 is the neighbour of PW.8. She deposed that the accused was an auto driver, accused, victim and their children were residing in the house of PW.8. During such stay in their house, she witnessed accused coming home drunk everyday, assaulting the victim and victim had also informed her about the same. It is no doubt true that PWs.6, 7 and 8 are the brother, sister and father of the victim. The accused was none else, but the son of sister of PW.8, therefore he had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in the case. The aforesaid witnesses were not going to derive any benefit, if the accused is convicted. Nothing in that regard was elicited in the cross examination. The evidence of those witnesses regarding - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 addiction of the accused to the alcohol and he ill-treating his wife consistently till her death, was not discredited. Further, their evidence shows that after learning about the incident, they went to the spot and found the victim with the homicidal injuries and accused was not found there. The evidence of PW.8 shows that when he went to the spot, he found injured accused also at the scene of offence. They further deposed that they came to know, more particularly PW.8, through PW.13 that accused has committed the murder of the victim. In their cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence. 15. PWs.9 and 10 are none else, but the children of the accused, aged 10 years and 12 years respectively. The records show that the trial Court, on putting some questions and examining them, has recorded satisfaction about their competence to depose. Both of them consistently deposed that the accused was in the habit of consuming alcohol, coming home drunk and assaulting the victim. They further deposed that themselves and their parents were residing in the house of PW.8/their grandfather. PW.10 has deposed that, before his 5th Standard examination, his parents shifted to Lokikere. When - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 his evidence was recorded, he was in 6th Standard. Both witnesses said that they came to know that accused has committed murder of their mother by assaulting her with chopper. Their evidence regarding the accused assaulting the victim may be hearsay, but their evidence about accused coming home drunk and subjecting the victim to physical and mental cruelty was rightly found acceptable by the trial Court. Therefore, the prosecution version regarding motive for the crime i.e. accused suspecting fidelity of his wife and harassing her was established. 16. Then the question is whether the prosecution has proved the death of the victim being homicidal. To prove the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.16/the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim and issued postmortem examination report as per Ex.P17. His evidence shows that when he examined the victim, the following injuries were found on the dead body : “i. An incised wound measuring 20 cm x 09 cm x soft tissues and cervical vertebral bone deep on the back of neck on left side with exposed lacerated muscles, vessels, nerves and fractured cervical vertebra which was horizontally placed and upper margin was situated 02 cm below left ear. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 ii. An incised wound measuring 12 cm x 03 cm x soft tissues deep on the back of neck on left side with exposed lacerated muscles, vessels and nerves which was horizontally placed and upper margin was situated 1 cm below injury No.1. iii. An incised wound measuring 2.5 cm x 08 cm x soft tissues deep on the back of neck on left side which was horizontally placed and situated below the back edge of injury No.2 with upper margin situated 1 cm below injury No.2. iv. An abraded wound measuring 10 cm x 7 cm over the top of left shoulder on its front and back incorporating three well marked abraded wounds measuring 3.5 cm x 2 cm, 4 cm x 1.5 cm and 6 cm x 05 cm. v. An abraded wound measuring 3 cm x 0.8 cm over the top of right shoulder on its back aspect. vi. An incised wound measuring 2 cm x 0.8 cm over the outer part of lower 1/3rd of left forearm which was obliquely placed.” 17. The doctor opined that the death was “due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon head and neck injuries sustained”. His evidence further shows that the Investigating Officer had referred MO.1/chopper to him for his opinion and on examining the same, he issued the certificate Ex.P19 to the effect that if the victim is assaulted with MO.1, the injuries found on the dead body could be caused. In the cross - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 examination, the accused himself suggested that the injury Nos.3 and 6 found on the dead body could be caused by knife or blade. The main thrust in the cross examination was that such injuries could not have been caused only by MO.1. His opinion regarding the injuries being homicidal was not discredited. 18. The evidence of PW.15/Medical Officer of C.G Hospital, Davanagere shows that on 26.09.2016 at 05.41 p.m. the accused was brought to District Hospital, Davanagere by his uncle/Neelappa with the history that the accused on committing murder of his wife by assaulting her with chopper, with the same chopper had inflicted injuries on his neck. She testified that she examined him and she found the following injuries: “Horizontal lacerated wound present over the neck 3 cms below the hyoid bone measuring around 5 x 2.5 cms in its greatest dimensions, strap muscles were cut in mid line. Multiple cuts were present over the thyroid cartilage and deep through and through cup present over the thyroid cartilage on the left side.” 19. In that regard, PW.15 has issued Ex.P16 and opined that such injuries could be caused by MO.1 by self-infliction. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 Ex.P16/MLC register submitted by the said witness shows that the accused was brought to the said hospital by his uncle with aforesaid history. In her cross examination the accused being brought to the said hospital with such injuries by Neelappa, was not disputed. No other theory was suggested to explain how injuries were caused. It was only denied that Neelappa gave such history. PW.15 was an independent witness, she had no reason to depose falsely against the accused. Moreover, as the injuries and admission in the hospital were not disputed, accused had to explain how and in which place he suffered those injuries, which he failed to do so. Therefore, that circumstance corroborates the other evidence regarding the overt acts of the accused. 20. According to the prosecution, the clothes of the accused and deceased and chopper were seized by the investigating officer. They were sent for FSL examination. It is further the case of the prosecution that PW.17 on the requisition of investigating officer, drew the sample blood of the accused and that was also sent for FSL examination. FSL examination showed that the blood group of the accused was - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 ‘O’ and victim blood group was ‘A’ and clothes of the accused, deceased and the weapon were stained with ‘A’ blood group. 21. Ex.P7 is spot mahazar cum seizure mahazar for seizure of MO.1/chopper from the scene of offence. As rightly deposed, PW.20 admits drawing of spot mahazar and his signature on Ex.P7 and signature of the same on MO.1/chopper found lying at the scene of offence and photograph/Ex.P8 taken during the spot mahazar. The other witnesses to mahazar/Ex.P7 supported the proceedings under Ex.P7. Ex.P9 the mahazar said to be drawn by the Investigating Officer for seizure of clothes of the accused and the deceased which were brought by PW.23/PC-125/Bhanu Prakash and produced in the police station and they were said to be seized in the presence of PW.12. 22. The evidence of PW.23 i.e. PC-125, PW.25/the Investigating Officer and the mahazar witness/PW.12 regarding seizure of clothes of the accused and the deceased i.e. MOs.6 and 7 shirt and pant of the accused was consistent with seizure. The evidence of PW.22/PC-104, PW.25/the Investigating Officer and PW.16/the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim, shows - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 that after postmortem examination, PW.16 entrusted MOs.6 and 7/the clothes of the victim to PW.22/PC who had escorted the dead body and he carried and produced the same before PW.25/the Investigating Officer. It is no doubt true that the Investigating Officer has not drawn any mahazar for seizure of the said articles. However, in the cross examination of the said witness or the other witnesses, the fact that they were the clothes of the deceased was not disputed. 23. The evidence of PW.25/Investigating officer PW.26/FSL Expert shows that the clothes of the accused, deceased and MO.1/weapon were sent for chemical examination. On examination of the same, FSL report/Ex.P28 was issued. Ex.P28 shows that on the clothes of the accused, deceased and weapon, ‘A’ blood group was found. The accused failed to explain the said circumstance. 24. The above facts and circumstances clearly go to show that the accused on committing murder of his wife in a barbaric way, fearing the consequences of the same has attempted to commit suicide by self-infliction of injuries on his neck with the same chopper. The trial Court on judicious evaluation of the evidence and materials on record has - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37330-DB CRL.A No.586/2019 convicted the accused. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court suffers any infirmity or illegality. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PKN,KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9