- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.634/2018(C) BETWEEN: JENUKURUBA MUTHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O LINE HOUSE OF BALLUR MOHAN HOSKERE VILLAGE, MADIKERI POST, MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT. (AT PRESENT LODGED IN CENTRAL PRISON, MYSURU) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE (AUTHORISED BY HCLSC)) AND: THE STATE BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.02.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN S.C.NO.67/2017 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 307 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS 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:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 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, accused in S.C.No.67/2017 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu sitting at Madikeri has preferred this appeal. 2. Appellant was the sole accused in S.C.No.67/2017. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Appellant/accused was tried in S.C.No.67/2017 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 and 307 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Madikeri Rural Police in Crime No.83/2015 of their Police Station. 4. According to the prosecution, the couple PW.1 and accused were working in the coffee estate of PW.2 and Mohan since 2½ years prior to the incident. They were residing in the line house belonging to PW.2 and deceased situated in their coffee estate. In the line house provided to PW.1 and accused, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 there was a room which was being used for storing pepper harvested from the Coffee Estate of PW.2 and victim Mohan. Whenever pepper was stored in that room, to guard that, Mohan used to sleep in the said room. The accused suspecting that PW.1 and the deceased have illicit relationship, on 14.03.2015 at 08.30 p.m., when Mohan was sleeping in the said house, assaulted him with a sickle (Katti) and committed his murder. Further, he attempted to commit murder of PW.1 by assaulting her with the same sickle and caused her grievous injuries. Then he rushed to the house of PW.2 proclaiming that he has committed murder of Mohan and ran away. 5. The Trial Court, on hearing the accused framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 and 307 of IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore, trial was conducted. 6. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs 1 to 14 were marked. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He did not lead any defence evidence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 7. The Trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order, accepting the evidence of PW.1/injured eyewitness, the circumstance of extrajudicial confession and the abscondence of the accused, has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. Further, the Trial Court has sentenced him to imprisonment and fine as follows: Sl. No. Offences under Sections Sentence Fine Amount in Rs. Default Sentence 1 302 of IPC RI for life 7,500/- - 2 307 of IPC RI for 6 years 5,000/- SI for 2 months The said judgment is challenged in the above appeal. Submissions of Sri B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant: 8. The sole eyewitness/injured witness has not supported the prosecution version. She has stated that she has not witnessed the accused assaulting and committing the murder of deceased. Her evidence is full of inconsistencies. The said evidence was not corroborated by the other evidence. The evidence of PW.2 regarding extra-judicial confession and PW.1 narrating the incident to her is shaky. According to her, at the time of incident, wife of the deceased was also with her in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 same house. But, wife of deceased did not go to the scene of incident and Investigating Officer has not recorded her statement. PWs.2 and 3 state that there was no electricity during the alleged time of incident. Therefore, witnesses identifying the accused in such darkness is doubtful. There was no recovery of any incriminating article from accused. Investigating officer did not collect blood samples of PW.1 and the deceased to verify, whether they match with the blood stains allegedly found on their clothes. Since the said evidence of the witnesses was doubtful, the last seen theory cannot be accepted. According to the prosecution itself, the house of deceased and accused situated in different places. Therefore, presence of deceased at the scene of offence should have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW.2 regarding extra-judicial confession was not corroborated by any other witness. Investigating Officer not citing the wife of the deceased as witness assumes significance in that context. Absconding of the accused is not a doubtful circumstance. So far as charge under Section 302 IPC, there was no cogent and consistent evidence. Even if the evidence of PW.1 is accepted, at the most only conviction for the offence under Section 307 of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 IPC sustains. The accused is in judicial custody since 2017. Reducing sentence to the period of detention already undergone, he be released and appeal be allowed accordingly. Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II : 9. The relationship of accused and PW.1 and homicidal death of the victim Mohan are not disputed. The fact of PW.1 and accused staying in the house where the incident took place is also not disputed. Soon after the incident PW.1 was taken to District Hospital, Madikeri where PW.6 treated her. Immediately thereafter the medico legal intimation was issued. Soon after the incident, in the hospital records the name of the accused appeared as assailant. PW.6 has supported the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P13. PW.1 has admitted police recording Ex.P13 in the hospital. She being the wife had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The evidence of PW.2 shows that her house and the line house, where the incident took place, were in the close proximity. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 shows that accused and PW.1 were working in the coffee estate of PW.2 and the victim since about 2 and half years. Earlier they had not raised any complaints against the accused. The evidence of PW.2 with regard to extra-judicial confession and the involvement of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 accused is acceptable one. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was further corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 and PW.5. In the inquest mahazar, the sketch of scene of offence is drawn and the same is not disputed. The Investigating Officer not drawing the spot mahazar soon after the incident is not fatal. The accused failed to explain how his wife suffered injuries and victim was found in his residence. Abscondence of accused for 2 years leads to the inference of his culpability. The Trial Court on sound appreciation of the evidence and applying sound reasons has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. 10. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgments: i) Ramu Appa Mahapatar vs. State of Maharashtra1 ii) Sekaran vs. State of TamilNadu2 11. On considering the submissions of both side and on examining the material on record, the point that arise for determination is: “whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is sustainable ?” 1 (2025)3 SCC 565 2 (2024)2 SCC 176 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 ANALYSIS 12. Some of the undisputed facts of the case are as follows: That PW.1 is the wife of accused, PW.2 is the mother of deceased Mohan. That accused and PW.1 were working in the coffee estate belonging to PW.2 and deceased in Hoskeri Village. Accused and PW.1 were permitted to live in the line house of the deceased situated in that Coffee Estate. In that house there was a room for storing pepper cultivated by the deceased. Whenever pepper was harvested and stored there, deceased used to come and sleep in the said room. 13. The case of the prosecution is as follows: i) Accused was suspecting the fidelity of PW1. On 14.03.2015 at 08.30 p.m. Mohan had come to the aforesaid line house. Accused picked up quarrel with him suspecting that himself and PW.1 have an affair, assaulted him with sickle and committed his murder. Further with the same sickle he assaulted PW.1, caused her injuries and attempted to commit her murder. When she fell down, he ran to the house of PW.2/mother of Mohan with the sickle proclaiming that he has committed murder of her son and from there he escaped. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 ii) On hearing the accused PW.2 rushed to the line house along with PW.3 and CW.4 and found injured PW.1. PW.1 revealed the incident. On getting inside, she found her son dead with homicidal injuries. Thereafter PW.3/the neighbour and CW.4/Sanatkumar shifted the injured/PW.1 to District Hospital, Madikeri. PW.1 was treated in the said hospital as inpatient between 15.03.2015 and 02.04.2015. iii) When PW.1 was in the hospital, PW.9/PSI of Madikeri Rural Police Station visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 as per Ex.P13 on 15.03.2015, between 2.15 a.m to 3.00 a.m. Based on Ex.P13, he registered FIR as per Ex.P14 in Crime No.83/2015 of Madikeri Rural Police Station and handed over the investigation to CPI/PW.14. iv) PW.14 conducted the inquest mahazar, recorded statements of the witnesses and got conducted post mortem examination on the dead body, seized the clothes of the deceased, which were produced by PW.8/Police Constable. The accused was absconding. PW.14 had deputed PW.11 and other staff to apprehend the accused. On 13.06.2017, at 11.30 a.m. PW.11 traced the accused and produced him before PW.14. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 PW.14 conducted the further investigation and filed the charge sheet. 14. The case of the prosecution is thus based on: 1. The evidence of PW1/injured eyewitness; 2. Circumstance of motive; 3. Circumstance of extrajudicial confession made by the accused before PW.2; 4. Medical and forensic evidence ; 5. Abscondence of accused after the incident; 6. Recovery of MOs.1 to MO.14 and 7. Forensic evidence Reg. nature of death and evidence of eyewitness: 15. As per prosecution, the accused suspecting illicit relationship between PW.1 and Mohan, committed murder of Mohan assaulting with sickle and attempted to commit murder of PW.1 by assaulting with the same sickle. Thus PW.1 is injured-cum-eye witness. 16. It is settled principle of law that when a case is based on the evidence of the eyewitness, that too injured eyewitness, the circumstantial evidence takes a back seat. If the evidence of the eyewitness is found natural and probable, the minor contradictions found, if any in his/her evidence cannot be - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 blown out of proportion. Evidence of eye witness, if turned hostile, not liable to be totally rejected, if the same was found trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence on record. If the evidence of eyewitness is found credible, conviction can be based solely on such evidence of eyewitness. This view of ours is supported by the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: i) Pandappa Hanumappa Hanamar and another vs. State of Karnataka3 ii) Koli Lakshmanbhai Chanabhai vs State of Gujarat4 17. The evidence of PW.1 has to be appreciated in the light of the aforesaid legal position. PW.1 in her chief examination deposed about accused and herself living in line house, working under the deceased and deceased during the pepper harvesting season coming and sleeping in the said house. The said fact is not disputed in her cross examination. Further she deposed that on the date of the incident at 8.30 p.m., she found accused going into the line house with a sickle (katti), after some time he came out with blood stained sickle (katti), threatening to commit her murder, he assaulted her with the same weapon on her hands, chest and head. She called 3 AIR 1997 SC 3663 4 AIR 2000 SC 210 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 deceased and then fell down. She further deposed that after some time PW.2 came and offered water to her and on enquiry she revealed the incident to PW.2. She then deposed about PW.2 shifting her to the hospital, being treated there and about Police collecting her blood stained clothes/MOs.1 to 3 and bangle pieces/MO.4. 18. Since PW.1 in the chief examination did not speak about she witnessing the accused assaulting Mohan, Public Prosecutor treated her hostile to that extent and cross-examined her. In such cross examination though she denied her statement Ex.P1 regarding she witnessing the accused assaulting the deceased, she admits that she saw deceased had fallen in the line house and died and when she enquired the accused as to why he has committed his murder, accused assaulted her also with the same sickle. 19. The fact that the dead body of Mohan was found in the house where PW.1 and accused were living together was not disputed in the evidence of any of the witnesses. The evidence of PW.7 that on police requisition she conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mohan on 15.03.2015 between 1.50 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. and issued post - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 mortem report/Ex.P9 was not disputed. Her evidence and PM Report show that the victim was found with the following injuries: 1. Contusion abrasion present over right cheek close to lower part of right eye measuring 1 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. placed obliquely. 2. Contused abrasion present behind the right ear measuring 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. 3. Chop wound present over right side of the neck, situated just below the ear lobule, horizontally extending from right cheek bone to back of head, cutting off the lower part of ear lobule, measuring 15 c.m. x 3 c.m. x 3 c.m., situated 4 c.m. above posterior hair line. Tailing was present for a length of 0.8 c.m. towards the back of head. Margins were clean cut. Upper margin was beveled. The underlying neck structures-muscles, vessels and nerves are cut up to the level of 3rd cervical vertebra. The underlying mandible bone and cervical vertebra showed cut fractures. 4. Chop wound present over right side of the neck, situated parallel and 1 c.m. below the previous injury, measuring 8 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 2 c.m. Margins were clean cut. The underlying soft tissues and vessels were cut. The lower margin was undermined. 5. Incised wound present 1 c.m. below injury No.3. measuring 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. 6. Stab wound (horizontal) present over right side of the neck, situated 0.5 c.m. below the previous injury and measures 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. Inner end was blunt and outer end was sharp. On further dissection, the wound track was present along with neck muscles and was directed above downwards and back to front. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 7. Stab wound (horizontal) present over right side of the neck, situated 0.5 c.m. below and behind the previous injury and measures 2 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Both ends were blunt. On further dissection the wound track was present along the neck muscles and was directed above downwards. 8. Stab wound (horizontal) present over right side of the chin, along the ramus of mandible close to the angle of jaw measuring 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m, inner end was sharp and outer end was in continuation with next injury. The underlying neck muscles were cut and mandible showed cut fracture. On further dissection the wound track was directed above downwards. 9. Stab wound (oblique) present over the right side of chin as an extension of skin layer of previous injury. It measured 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m., Inner upper end was in continuation with previous injury and outer lower end was sharp. On further dissection the wound track was directed above downwards. 10.Contused abrasion present over right side of neck, placed horizontally and 4 c.m. below the mid ramus of the mandible measuring 1 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. 11. Chop wound present over back and top of right shoulder obliquely placed measuring 11 c.m. x 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. The upper margin was undermined and can be lifted up like a flap. The lower margin was beveled, contused and showed contused soft tissues and muscles. Tailing was present for a length of 0.8 c.m. upper posterior end. The underlying humerus bone showed chip fracture. 20. Her opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injuries was not disputed. The defence counsel himself suggested to PW.7 in the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 cross examination that such injuries could be caused by assault by moderately heavy cutting weapons. Thereby the fact of death being homicidal was not disputed. 21. The evidence of PW.1/injured eye witness, PW.2/the mother of the deceased, PW.3/neighbour of the deceased show that soon after the incident PW.2 came to the scene of offence, after enquiring PW.1, she raised alarm and PW.3 also came to the spot, they found Mohan dead and shifted PW.1 to District Hospital, Madikeri. 22. PW.6/Medical Officer of District Hospital, Madikeri deposed that on 15.03.2015 at 1.30 a.m., PW.1 was brought to their hospital with the history of assault by the accused at around 6 p.m. on 14.03.2015, in her house by sickle (Katti). He also deposed that she was treated in the hospital between 15.03.2015 and 02.04.2015 as in-patient and Exs.P7 and 8 are the wound certificate and MLC issued by him respectively. His evidence and Ex.P7 show that PW.1 had suffered the following injuries: 1. Cut lacerated wound over left palm and forearm measuring 15 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. Bones, Tendons and vessels were cut and there was fresh bleeding. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 2. Cut lacerated wound over right forearm measuring 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. with fresh bleeding. 3. Cut lacerated wound over right palm measuring 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. with fresh bleeding. 4. Cut lacerated wound over left temporal region measuring 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. with fresh bleeding. 5. Cut lacerated wound over left partial region measuring 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. with fresh bleeding. 6. Cut lacerated wound over right partial region measuring 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. 7. Cut lacerated wound over right occipital region measuring 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. with fresh bleeding. 23. In the cross examination, PW.6 unequivocally stated that when PW.1 was brought to the hospital she was conscious, he personally examined her and PW.1 gave history of assault by the accused. Such evidence was not impeached. He is an independent witness and he had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. He denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that he has recorded the history as per the say of the persons who accompanied PW.1. Thus the evidence of PW.1 regarding the overtact of the accused was corroborated by medical evidence and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. As the accused is her husband she wavering while tendering evidence to directly implicate the accused as murderer of the victim is expected conduct. Under the circumstances and in view the judgments of - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, such variance in her evidence does not demolish the case of the prosecution about the accused assaulting the victim and causing his death. Further such evidence of PW.1 was corroborated by the other circumstances. Hence the Trial Court was justified in relying on the evidence of PW.1/injured eye witness and the medical evidence in convicting the accused. Reg. confession of the accused before PW.2 24. According to the prosecution, after commission of the offence, holding the weapon in his hand, accused rushed to PW2/the mother of the victim and told her that he has committed the murder of her son assaulting him with the sickle and went away. PW.2 came out and screamed for help and PW.3/neighbour on hearing the same came there. She disclosed about the extra judicial confession and the offence. Then both of them went to the scene of offence and found PW.1 injured and dead body of Mohan. Then ambulance was called and injured was shifted to the hospital. On these aspects PW.1 to 3 have corroborated each other. The evidence of PW.6/the doctor who treated PW.1 shows that PW.1 was brought to the hospital in an ambulance accompanied by CW.4. Therefore, there is - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 complete corroboration for the evidence of PW.2 by the other witnesses. 25. The only contention raised to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 and aforesaid other witnesses is that the wife of Mohan was also living with PW.2, but she had not gone to the spot and Investigating Officer did not examine her, therefore, PW.2’s evidence shall be disbelieved. In her cross examination, PW.2 has stated that wife of the deceased was staying in Sampaje and she was also staying with her when deceased was murdered. When PW.1/injured eye witness has supported the other evidence corroborated evidence by PW.2, mere omission of Investigating Officer to record the statement of the wife of the deceased does not demolish the entire case of the prosecution or about extra judicial confession. Victim was none else but the son of PW.2. There was no reason for her to shield the true culprit if it was somebody and to falsely implicate the accused. In her cross examination, no motive was attributed to her for false implication. Further Ex.P13/complaint/statement of PW.1 shows that the same was recorded soon after the incident in Government hospital. In the said statement the fact of PW.2 going to the scene of offence and fetching PW.3 and CW.4 and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 shifting the victim to the hospital is mentioned. That also lends support to the evidence of PW.2 regarding extra judicial confession. Hence the judgment in Ramu Appa Mahapatar’s case referred to supra, which shows that the said case was depending solely on the circumstantial evidence, cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of this case. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in accepting the circumstance of extra judicial confession. Reg. Motive: 26. According to the prosecution, the accused suspecting that the deceased and PW.1 have illicit relationship, assaulted both of them. PW.1 in her chief examination has stated that after herself and accused came together and started living, accused started suspecting her fidelity and that herself and the deceased have an affair. She has further deposed that accused was stating before everybody that for such extra marital relationship he would commit her murder. Her statement/Ex.P13 which was recorded in the hospital when she was serious, also impute the same motive. Therefore the evidence regarding motive was cogent and consistent and Trial court was justified in relying on the motive circumstance. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 Reg. conduct of the accused: 27. The offence took place on 14.03.2015 at 8.30 p.m. The accused could be arrested on 13.06.2017. Till then he had fled away from justice for more than two years. He had no explanation for the same. Such conduct of the accused was rightly considered by the Trial Court. 28. As already noted, the case was based on the evidence of injured eye witness coupled with the other circumstance. Firstly, the evidence of injured eye witness/PW.1 was found acceptable and that was corroborated by the other evidence on record. Before this Court it is contended that the accused on seeing the victim and PW.1 together has committed the offence due to sudden provocation, hence, offence falls under Section 304 of IPC and not Section 302 IPC. During the trial, no such defence was taken. Secondly the deceased and PW.1 both were unarmed. The evidence on record shows that the accused had gone there armed with weapon and assaulted both of them indiscriminately leading to death of Mohan and grievous injuries to PW.1. PW.1’s evidence shows that, before the incident he was proclaiming that he will kill her. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the offence - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30395-DB CRL.A No.634/2018 falls under Section 304 IPC. Reading of the judgment in Sekaran’s case referred to supra relied on by learned counsel for the appellant shows that in that case such defence was taken before the Trial Court itself and that was corroborated by the other evidence. Hence the said judgment cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of this case. Trial Court on judicious appreciation of the evidence and supplying sound reasonings, has passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The same warrants no interference. Hence the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE AKC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12