- 1 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100235 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. UMESH FAKIRAPPA HAVAKADAD AGE: 36 YEARS, R/O. BETASOOR, HOOLIKATTI, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SAUDATTI POLICE STATION, SAUDATTI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER CALLING FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.12.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.71/2023 AND PASS AN ORDER ACQUITTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 504 OF IPC IN SESSIONS CASE NO.71/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2025.07.17 10:45:31 +0530 - 2 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 11.12.2023 passed in S.C.No.71/2023 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Sessions Judge’ for short), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. It ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently and the accused was entitled for set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was as follows: - 3 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 The complainant-Basavva M. Nandennavar is the wife of deceased-Mallappa Gangappa Nandennavar and CW.14 and CW.15 are their children. CW.8-Kareppa is the younger brother of deceased-Mallappa. The accused-Umesh Fakirappa Havakadad is the nephew of deceased and PW.2. PW.12- Padmavati is the wife of accused. The accused, PW.12 and their children were residing in the house of PW.2. The accused was addicted to alcohol and use to quarrel with his wife and children everyday. PW.2 and deceased used to advice him not to indulge in such acts. However, the accused continued the same. Hence, PW.2 and deceased drove him out of the house two years prior to the incident. However, the accused used to visit the house of PW.2 and quarrel with them. On 26.01.2023, the deceased returned to his house from his land and after having lunch, at about 03:30 p.m. he was having betel nut along with PW.3 on a platform in front of the house of PW.6. The complainant went in search of the deceased and in the meantime, PW.2 also reached the said place where the deceased was sitting. At that time, the accused armed with an axe went there and assaulted deceased with an axe on the nape of his neck accusing the deceased of not allowing him to live with his wife and children. As a result of the assault, - 4 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 Mallappa fell down from the platform and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 3. Later, PW.1-Complainant informed PW.19 the then PSI of Savadatti Police station in writing on the same day as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.19 registered a case against accused in Crime No.40/2003 dated 26.01.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC as per Ex.P28. Subsequently, PW.19 conducted investigation by drawing spot mahazar-Ex.P2, inquest panchanama as per Ex.P13 and arrested the accused on the same day and based on his voluntary statement, the weapon M.O.1-axe used for the crime and clothes of the accused were seized. Subsequently, after recording the statement of material witnesses and on obtaining documents from the concerned authorities, PW.19 laid charge sheet against accused for the aforementioned offences before the committal Court. 4. After committal of case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC and read over the same to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. - 5 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 5. To prove the charges leveled against the accused before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.22 and marked 49 documents as Ex.P1 to P49 and identified 9 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.9. 6. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal. 7. We have heard Sri S.P. Kandagal, learned counsel for the appellant-accused and learned Addl. SPP Sri M.B. Gundawade for the respondent-State. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment under challenge suffers from perversity and illegality since the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective. He contended that there were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident i.e., PWs.1 to 3. Among these witnesses, PWs.1 and 2 admitted in their cross-examination that they reached the alleged spot of - 6 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 incident after the deceased fell on the ground and PW.3 also admitted the same. Further, PW.3 stated that he was unable to see the accused at the time of incident and he saw him after the incident. In such circumstance, he contends, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be relied to prove the charges leveled against the accused. He further contended that PWs.1 and 2 are interested witnesses since they are the wife and brother of deceased and PW.3 is a close friend of PWs.1 and 2. Hence, he contends that their evidence cannot be relied without any corroborative evidence of independent witness. The learned counsel further contended that, PWs.4 to 7 are hearsay witnesses; they reached the alleged spot after the incident and they were informed by PWs.1 to 3 about the incident, as such, no credence can be attached to their evidence. Additionally he contended, though the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.8 and 10 to prove the recovery of material objects at the instance of the accused, on perusal of their evidence, the recovery was not effected as provided under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and also as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Lastly, he contended that the prosecution also failed to prove the motive for the alleged incident. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused - 7 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 based on surmises and conjectures and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Alternatively he contended, if the incident in question is admitted for the sake of argument, still the act of the accused squarely falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 Part I or II of IPC. He contends that as per the case of the prosecution the deceased drove out the accused from the house of PW.2, due to which, the accused was provoked to commit the offence. He contends, the act committed by the accused is without any premeditative motive and in a spur of moment or in a fit of anger. Further, the accused did not act in a cruel manner at the time of incident or after the incident. Hence, the learned counsel prays to modify the sentence to Section 304 Part I or II of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC. 10. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP supported the impugned judgment and contended inter alia that the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused by a well reasoned judgment after meticulously examining the evidence and documents on record. Therefore, he contends that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity or - 8 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 illegality. He contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3- eyewitnesses to the incident clearly established that on the fateful day, when the deceased was sitting on platform in front of the house of PW.6 along with PW.3, the accused came there armed with M.O.1-axe and assaulted him on his neck and murdered him. He contends that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is consistent without any contradiction or omission. He contends that, the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 also established the presence of the accused at the spot with an axe-M.O.1 in hand. He contends in addition, the prosecution examined PWs.6 and 7- the circumstantial witnesses to the incident who deposed about the motive for the incident. He further contended that the prosecution proved the recovery of M.O.1-axe used for committing the offence and M.Os.2 and 3-clothes of the accused worn at the time of incident seized under Exs.P16 and P14 respectively from the evidence PWs.8 and 9. Further, the prosecution examined PW.22-the Scientific Officer who submitted the FSL report to prove that the weapon and clothes of the accused were stained with human blood. In such circumstance, he contended that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 9 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence and documents on record, the points that would arise for our consideration are: i. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality? ii. Whether the learned Sessions Judge justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC? 12. It can be gathered from the records that in order to prove the homicidal death of deceased-Mallappa, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.15- Medical Officer who conducted autopsy of the deceased and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P30. PW.15 gave his opinion as to cause of death is due to “cardio-respiratory failure, secondary to hypovolemic shock added with vital cranio-cerebral injury to brain as a result of head injury”. He also stated that, all the injuries sustained by the deceased were ante-mortem in nature. Additionally, the prosecution relied on the inquest panchanama conducted on the deceased by PW.19- Investigation Officer as per Ex.P13. PW.8 was the inquest witness who identified the injuries on the body of the deceased. Hence, on a collective reading of the evidence of PWs.15, 19 and 8 along with EXs.P30 and P13, we are of the view that the - 10 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. To connect the accused to the homicidal death of deceased, the prosecution significantly relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3-eyewitnesses to the incident, PWs.4 and 5-the res justae witnesses, PWs.6 and 7-the circumstantial witnesses and PWs.8 and 9-the recovery mahazar witnesses, PW.19- Investigation Officer and PW.22-FSL Officer. Among these witnesses, PW.1 is the wife of deceased, who set the criminal law into motion by lodging complaint against the accused as per Ex.P1. On careful perusal of the contents of Ex.P1, she stated that the accused was the nephew of deceased-Mallappa and PW.2 and he had married PW.12. The accused was addicted to alcohol and failed to look after his wife and children. As such, all of them were residing in the house of PW.2. Despite, this the accused continued with his behaviour of abusing PW.12. Therefore, PW.2 and deceased drove him out of the house two years prior to the incident. Hence, he was grinding ill-will against deceased and his brother-PW.2. On the fateful day, the accused murdered the deceased when he was sitting on a platform along with PW.3 in front of the house of PW.6. The accused assaulted the deceased with M.O.1-axe on - 11 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 nape of his neck, due to which the deceased succumbed at the spot. The said incident was witnessed by PWs.1 to 3. PW.1 reiterated the assertion made in the complaint in her evidence before the Court. There are no discrepancies in her evidence and complaint-Ex.P1 was lodged at the earliest point of time. Further, this evidence of PW.1 clearly corroborates the testimony of PWs.2 and 3-the eyewitnesses to the incident. Both these witnesses have deposed that the accused was grinding ill-will against the deceased and PW.2, as they drove him out of the house. Further, on the date of the incident, the deceased was sitting on a platform situated in front of the house of PW.6 along with PW.3 and having betel nut. At that time, the accused armed with M.O.1-axe went there and assaulted the deceased and murdered him. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is consistent and all these witnesses identified M.O.1-axe used by the accused to assault the deceased. Though the defence counsel cross-examined these witnesses intensely and extensively, they withstood the test of cross- examination, albeit a few minor contradictions in their testimony, which did not go to the root of the prosecution case. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, who deposed that they visited the spot immediately after the incident; saw the accused running from the place of incident - 12 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 with the blood stained axe-M.O.1 and saw the body of the deceased at the spot. Later, they were informed by PWs.1 to 3 that the accused murdered the deceased. Hence, the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 who are res justae witnesses also carries evidentiary value and adds credence to the evidence of the eyewitnesses-PWs.1 to 3. Their testimonies are relevant piece of evidence as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, on a careful examination of the evidence of PWs.6 and 7, PW.6 stated that she found blood stains on the platform situated in front of her house on the date of incident and she came to know that the accused murdered the deceased at the said place. PW.7 also deposed about the motive for the commission of offence. Hence, on a careful analysis of evidence of PWs.1 to 7, the prosecution successfully established that the appellant committed the offence. 14. The prosecution also proved the recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., M.O.1-axe used by the accused for the commission of crime and M.Os.2 and 3 the shirt and trouser of the accused worn at the time of incident. These material objects were seized at the instance of the accused based on his voluntary statement under recovery mahazars-Exs.P14 and P16 by the Investigation Officer-PW19. PWs.8 and 9-the mahazar - 13 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 witnesses, supported the case of prosecution and stated in their evidence that the accused showed the place where he had hidden M.Os.1 to 3 and the Police seized the same under Exs.P14 and 16. They identified their respective signature on Exs.P14 and 16. Though the defence counsel made an attempt to prove that M.Os.1 to 3 are recovered at the instance of Police and not by the accused, however, both these witnesses have denied those suggestions put to them in their cross- examination. Hence, the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 at the instance of accused. Further, the Investigation Officer sent M.Os.1 to 3 for chemical examination. PW.22 is the FSL Officer who subjected the M.Os.1 to 3 for chemical analysis. In his evidence he stated that, all these material objects were stained with human blood of ‘O’ group. However, a contention was raised by the learned counsel for the accused that PW.22 had failed to determine the RH factor of ‘O’ blood group found on M.Os.1 to 3. We are afraid and unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel, for the reason, as per the settled position of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, the evidence of experts cannot be disbelieved on hyper technical reasons. Moreover, the same shall be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence. The Investigation Officer also obtained the opinion from the Doctor- - 14 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 PW.15 who opined as per his report at Ex.P31 that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused if assaulted by M.O.1-axe. In such circumstance, in our considered opinion, the prosecution placed sufficient evidence and documents to prove the guilt of the accused. Per contra, the accused failed to furnish any such explanation in his 313 statement as to why the Police had falsely implicated him in the case. 15. As far as the alternative contention of the learned counsel for the accused is concerned, on an overall consideration of the evidence on record and the manner in which the accused committed the murder of deceased, we are of the view that the act of accused does not fall under Exception 1 or 4 to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 part I or II of IPC. There is no evidence in record to justify that the deceased provoked the accused and due to such provocation the accused in fit of rage murdered the deceased. As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, deceased was sitting on the platform along with PW.3 and having betel nut. At that time, accused assaulted him repeatedly with M.O.1-axe, on the vital part of deceased i.e., on the neck. The premeditative motive on the part of the accused to commit the murder of deceased is very clear. Viewed from any angle, the - 15 - CRL.A No.100235 OF 2024 act of accused does not fit into any of the exception clauses under Section 300 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the alternative contention of the learned counsel is also liable to be rejected. 16. As discussed supra, the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused by placing cogent evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, in our considered view, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him. In that view of the matter, interference in the impugned judgment is not warranted. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 raised above in the ‘negative’ and point No.2 in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Criminal Appeal No.100235/2024 is dismissed. SD/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV CT:PA