- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH 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. 638 OF 2018 (C) BETWEEN: JENUKURUBARA KARIYA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMA, R/O KUMBARAKATTER HADI MALURU, BALELE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.S. SURESH, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE CPI, GONIKOPPA CIRCLE POLICE, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.01.2018 AND SENTENCE DATED 30.01.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET IN S.C.NO.45/2016 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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 MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) This appeal is by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 29.01.2018 passed in S.C.No.45/2016 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short) by which, the trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for life and to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution: (a) That victim-Jayamala and appellant/accused being married for 10 years were residing in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 Kumabarakatte Hadi Malloor, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. Appellant/accused was addicted to alcohol and was irregular to his coolie work. That on 01.12.2015 at about 7.30 p.m. victim-Jayamala advised the appellant/accused not to consume alcohol and to attend his work regularly. This enraged the appellant/accused to the extent throttling her neck and assaulting on her head with his hands. Thereafter with an intention to kill her, he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. On hearing her cries her mother, brother, relatives and neighbours came to the spot and doused the fire by pouring water. She was immediately taken to Gonikoppal Hospital in an autorickshaw on the same night. She was shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, for treatment for burn injuries. (b) That on receiving the intimation, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnampet visited the K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, and recorded her statement on 02.12.2015 based on which he registered a case in Crime No.124/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused. Later Taluka Executive Magistrate/Additional Tahsildar recorded her dying declaration on the same day. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 (c) However, on 06.12.2015 at about 4.45 a.m. Jayamala breathed her last. Consequently Section 302 IPC was incorporated in the case. After the investigation a charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Charges were framed. Since the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried, trial was conducted. 3. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses as PW1 to PW21 and exhibited 43 documents as Exhibits P1 to P43 and also marked material objects M.Os.1 to 5. Statement of appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C on 08.01.2018 wherein though the appellant/accused denied all the incriminating evidence produced against him, however did not lead any defence evidence. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as noted above. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal by appellant/accused. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 Submissions of learned counsel for appellant/accused: 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that: (a) Case is based on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has neither established the motive nor the reason for victim sustaining burn injuries. (b) The hospital records at Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 reveal that the incident has taken place accidentally. However, the prosecution has created a theory of appellant/accused setting the victim ablaze. (c) That the evidence of PW.14-ASI who recorded the statement of victim at Ex.P7 in the presence of PW.19-the doctor and evidence of PW.16-Additional Tahsildar who recorded dying declaration at Ex.P15 is mutually contradictory. In Ex.P7 it is shown that victim had affixed her left thumb impression while in Ex.P15 victim is shown to have affixed her left great toe impression. That the manner in which the statement of the victim as per Ex.P7 and dying declaration as per Ex.P15 have come into existence creates serious doubt. (d) Since even according to the deposition of PW.19, victim -Jayamala had suffered burn injuries on face, mouth, ear, she could not have given statement. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 (e) That appellant/accused also had suffered burn injuries as he tried to extinguish the fire and to save the victim. He was also admitted in the hospital. (f) The allegation of appellant/accused throttling the neck of the victim and assaulting her on the head has not been established by the prosecution. That the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 does not support the case of the prosecution. Submissions of Smt.Sowmya R., learned HCGP for State: 5. The case is based on the statement of the victim and her dying declaration recorded as per Ex.P7 and Ex.P15 respectively. That the mental condition of the victim with regard to her ability to speak has been declared and certified by PW.19-Dr.Vijaykumar. Since no contrary evidence is brought on record, there is no reason to disbelieve Ex.P7 and Ex.P15. The witnesses namely PWs.2, 3 and 5 have supported the case of the prosecution. The said witnesses being relatives of the victim, cannot be a ground to discard their evidence particularly when the dying declaration is in place. Hence seeks for dismissal of the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 6. On hearing both side and on examining the records the point that arises for consideration is: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?" Order of the trial Court: 7. Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC based on: (i) Statement of the victim-Jayamala as per Ex.P7 and her dying declaration as per Ex.P15; (ii) Evidence of PW.19-doctor and PW.16-Tahsildar with regard to fitness and ability of victim-Jayamala to speak and give the statement; (iii) Evidence of PW.3- Akkamma mother of victim and PW.5-Vinu-Sister of victim in corroborating the contents of Ex.P7 and Ex.P15. (iv) Non-explanation by the accused as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding he sustaining burn injuries along with the victim-Jayamala. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 8. Admittedly the case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is also no dispute that the victim-Jayamala died of burn injuries. The motive for commission of offence as per the prosecution is appellant/accused getting enraged by victim-Jayamala advising him to give up alcohol and to be regular to his work. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused in brief is as follows: 9. PW.1- Jenukuruba Boji who is the cousin of victim and also the complainant has deposed that appellant/accused and victim were married for 10 years and were frequently quarrelling. She has spoken about she accompanying the victim-Jayamala to Gonikoppal hospital and thereafter to K.R Hospital, Mysuru for treatment. In her cross examination said witness has deposed that no complaint was given earlier against appellant/accused for he quarrelling with victim- Jayamala. She has also stated that she never went to pacify the appellant/accused and Jayamala any time when they were quarrelling. She states that she does not know to read and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 write Kannada. She has admitted that she went to police station and affixed her signature to the complaint at Ex.P1. Said witness has not spoken anything about victim- Jayamala informing her regarding appellant/accused being the reason for her burn injuries. 10. PW.2-Jenukuruba Chandru, maternal uncle of victim-Jayamala has stated that on hearing the commotion he went to the spot and found both appellant/accused and Jayamala inside their house. That Jayamala was caught with fire. That he along with one Appanna and other relatives took Jayamala to hospital for treatment. Said witness has partly turned hostile. In the cross examination the said witness has stated that he has not seen as to how victim-Jayamala caught fire. He however has stated that when he and others went to the spot, appellant/accused had hugged victim-Jayamala and in the process suffered burn injuries. He has also admitted that the appellant/ accused was treated at Madikeri Hospital. Even PW.2 has not whispered anything with regard to victim-Jayamala speaking about appellant/accused being responsible for her burn injuries. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 11. PW.3-Jenukuruba Akkamma, mother of victim- Jayamala has stated that on the date of the incident on hearing the cries of victim-Jayamala, she and her nephew-Appanna went near the house of victim-Jayamala and found her coming out of the hut and falling in front yard. She along with Appanna and others poured water on her and doused fire. Thereafter Jayamala was taken to Gonikoppal Hospital. Jayamala was not able to speak as her neck had swollen due to burn injuries. She was taken to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru for further treatment and that about 5 days thereafter she passed away. That when victim-Jayamala was being treated at K.R.Hospital she had told her about appellant/accused having poured kerosene and setting her ablaze. In the cross examination said witness has deposed that since victim-Jayamala had suffered burn injuries on her neck she was unable to talk. However, she has denied the suggestion that till her demise she was not in a position to talk. She has admitted that she has not seen personally as to how victim-Jayamala caught fire. That victim-Jayamala was able to speak only the following day of her admission to K.R.Hospital. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 That on the following day she spoke only once and there was nobody around them and she has not informed either to doctor or police regarding victim-Jayamala speaking to her. PW.3 is the only witness who has spoken about victim- Jayamala informing her about appellant/accused being author of her burn injuries, that too a day after her admission to K.R.Hospital. 12. PW.4- Appanna is the uncle of victim-Jayamala. Said witness has also spoken about he hearing the commotion and rushing to the house of the appellant/accused and seeing Jayamala coming out of the house with flames on her body. That he along with others had doused the fire by pouring water and took her to Gonikoppal Hospital in an autorickshaw and thereafter to Mysuru K.R.Hospital for treatment. Said witness has stated that when he enquired Jayamala the reason for the fire, she had informed that she caught fire suddenly from the lamp. Said witness has further deposed that the appellant/accused was present at the spot lying in a corner while dousing the fire on Jayamala, but he did not notice what - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 had happened to him. Said witness has deposed that both appellant/accused and Jayamala were cordial. Sometime appellant/accused used to consume alcohol and quarrel with victim Jayamala. That on the date of incident he did not hear any quarrel. He was witness to the respondent police conducting seizure mahazar and seizing a kerosene can, a lamp made out of a quarter bottle and oil spilled mud and sample mud and nighty which was worn by victim. PW.4 has thus spoken about victim-Jayamala informing him about she suffering burn injuries due to accidental fall of lamp on her. 13. PW.5-Vinu is younger sister of victim Jayamala. She has spoken about frequent quarrel between appellant/accused and Jayamala. That on the date of the incident at about 7.20 p.m. she heard the commotion and ran to the hut of victim Jayamala and found her on fire. That appellant/accused had also sustained burn injuries and was standing in front of the hut. She along with others doused the fire by pouring water on Jayamala. That she is not aware as to how Jayamala caught fire. She has stated that Jayamala did not tell her as to the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 reason for the fire. Said witness has partly turned hostile. During the cross examination by Public Prosecutor she has stated that victim-Jayamala on enquiry had informed her that the appellant/accused had throttled her neck, hit her on her head and set her ablaze by pouring kerosene. In the cross examination by defence counsel, PW.5 stated that victim-Jayamala had suffered burn injuries on her neck and head. But she did not witness how the fire was caught. She has stated that while victim-Jayamala was being taken in an autorickshaw to Gonikoppal Hospital she was speaking and her mother and uncle Appanna were also present. That they changed the dress of the victim-Jayamala in a bus stop before taking her to hospital. That Jayamala was crying due to burn injuries. That she accompanied Jayamala from Gonikoppal Hospital to Mysuru Hospital and she stayed in Mysuru Hospital for six days. That she does not know to read or write Kannada. That though she had informed police about Jayamala speaking to her while going in an auto, police did not enquire her. That she is not aware as to the contents of her statement recorded by police. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 Thus, as seen it is only in the cross examination by Public Prosecutor she has admitted to the suggestion regarding victim-Jayamala informing her about appellant/accused being responsible for her burn injuries. 14. PW.6- Annaiah is a relative of Jayamala and PW.7- Suri @ Aiyappa an acquaintance of appellant/accused and victim Jayamala, who are witnesses to the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. 15. PW.8- Kala is an acquaintance of appellant/accused and victim Jayamala, and witness to inquest mahazar at Ex.P5. She has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. PW.9-Gafoor is another acquaintance of the appellant/accused and victim-Jayamala, who is a witness to the inquest mahazar. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 17. PW.10-Puttamma a witness to inquest mahazar at Ex.P5 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 18. Thus, except PW.3-mother and PW.5-sister of victim-Jayamala none of the witnesses who were present at the scene of offence, who doused the fire and accompanied the victim-Jayamala to Gonikoppal Hospital and thereafter to K.R.Hospital have whispered about victim-Jayamala alleging anything against appellant/accused for being responsible for her burn injuries. Also necessary to note the aforesaid witnesses though have spoken about frequent quarrel between the appellant/accused and victim, have not spoken about appellant/accused having any motive. Such domestic quarrel with spouse would not par take the character of motive to kill her in the absence of cogent and acceptable evidence. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Munish Mubar Vs State of Haryana reported in (2012) 10 SCC 464, at paragraph 30 has held as under: "30. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance and importance for the reason that the absence of motive would put the court on its guard and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 cause it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof. However, the evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the mind of an assassin is very often not within the reach of others. The said motive may not even be known to the victim of the crime. The motive may be known to the assassin and no one else may know what gave birth to such evil thought in the mind of the assassin. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence indicating the guilt of the accused becomes untrustworthy and unreliable, because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who has knowledge of the circumstances that prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggest sufficient/necessary motive to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has committed the same. (See: Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Ors., Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, and Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab." (Emphasis supplied) Statement of the victim at Ex.P7 and dying declaration at Ex.P15: 20. In the present case the prosecution has heavily relied upon the statement recorded by PW.14 as per Ex.P7 and the dying declaration recorded by PW.16-Additional Tahsildar as per Ex.P15 and the same has been the basis for the trial Court to convict the accused. 21. PW.14- Subramani K.S., ASI of Ponnampet in his evidence has spoken about he having gone to K.R.Hospital to record the statement of victim-Jayamala on 02.12.2015 as per Ex.P7. He has stated that Akkamma, mother of Jayamala, and her elder brother were present in the hospital and they showed - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 the injured -Jayamala. That he had requested for a certificate from the doctor regarding the condition of injured-Jayamala to speak. Said requisition is marked as Ex.P11. Ex.P12(c) is the certificate/endorsement issued by doctor -Vijayakumar PW.19 regarding the fitness of injured-Jayamala to speak. He has spoken about Jayamala sustaining burn injuries on her face, chest, hands, arms and thigh. That when he enquired, Jayamala had informed him that on 01.12.2015 when she had returned home after coolie work at about 6.00 p.m. her husband was not at home and later came home at 6.30 p.m., consuming alcohol. That when she advised him, he picked up quarrel and at 7.00 p.m., he hit her on the head and throttled her neck. Thereafter poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze by a lamp, when she screamed, her mother, her brother and the neighbours came and doused the fire. He has further stated that he obtained the thumb impression of Jayamala on the statement so recorded which is marked as Ex.P7(a). He has identified his signature on Ex.P7 and signature of doctor as Ex.P7(a). He stated the said statement was recorded between 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. That he had made requisition to Mysuru Tahsildar (produced at Ex.P40 through PW.21-P.K.Raju) to record the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 dying declaration of Jayamala. He has further stated about he having handed over the statement of Jayamala -Ex.P7 to the Station House Officer at Ponnampet. That he received the intimation about Jayamala passing away on 06.12.2015 and he going to K.R.Hospital along with one Hemalatha and drawing the inquest report as per Ex.P5. He has also spoken about handing over the dead body of Jayamala to her parents after the post mortem. In the cross examination, the said witness has deposed that he obtained the hospital intimation from Devaraj Urs Outpost Police Station. That they had not received any phone call at Ponnampet Police station. He has stated that only after he recording the statement of Jayamala he had informed the Ponnampet Police regarding Jayamala suffering the burn injuries. That Jayamala belonged to Jenukuruba community. That he has not enquired as to her qualification. He has also admitted that there is no mention in Ex.P7 as to whether Jayamala had given her statement in Kannada. He has also admitted that there is no mention in Ex.P7 as to in whose handwriting the same is written. He has stated that it took two - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 hours for recording Ex.P7. He has also admitted that the face of Jayamala was burnt. That Jayamala was suffering from burn injuries and doctors were giving her injections. That Jayamala gave her statement as per Ex.P7 while lying on the bed. He has admitted that her hand was completely burnt. That he did not take thumb impression of the Jayamala on the first page of Ex.P7. That while recording the statement of Jayamala, her mother was present and that Jayamala gave her statement intermittently. That he has not recorded the statement of mother of Jayamala either before or subsequent to recording the statement of Jayamala at Ex.P7. Said witness is confronted with a copy of the statement at Ex.P7 which is marked as Ex.D1. The witness has admitted that in Ex.D1 which is a copy of Ex.P7, there is no endorsement or signature of the Medical Officer and of the Investigating Officer. 22. PW.19 -Dr.Vijaya Kumar who has treated victim- Jayamala in his evidence has stated that he had visited burn injuries ward of the K.R.Hospital at 9.00 a.m., on 02.12.2015 and found Jayamala suffering burn injuries on her face, chest, both the hands, thigh and on her back. That Jayamala was - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 speaking at 9.00 a.m. That he received a requisition at 12.25 p.m. on 02.12.2015 from Ponnampet Police regarding the fitness of Jayamala to speak as per Ex.P12. That he has given such certificate/declaration as per Ex.P12(b) and his signature at Ex.P12(c). That ASI-K.S.Subramani recorded her statement in his presence between 2.30 and 3.30 and he has made endorsement in English on the said statement which is marked as Ex.P7(d) and signature is marked as Ex.P7(e). That Jayamala had affixed her left thumb impression on said statement marked as Ex.P7(a). Admission records and case sheet of Jayamala were marked as Exs.P19 to 24. In the cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that in the follow up sheet at Ex.P21 when the victim-Jayamala was brought on 01.12.2015 at 11.30 p.m. it was mentioned that she having suffered accidental burn injuries from kerosene stove. He however states the said entries must have been done by some PG student and he did not remember the name of such student. He admits that mouth, lips and ear portion of Jayamala was completely burnt. However, denies that she was not able to speak or hear. The said witness denied the suggestion that - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 since her eyelids were burnt she was not able to open her eyes. He has admitted that Ex.D1 is the copy of Ex.P7 and the same does not bear his signature and endorsement. He has denied that since her fingers were completely burnt she was not able to affix her thumb impression. He has deposed that it took one hour to record her statement. That her statement was recorded by ASI in ICU Unit of Burn Injuries Ward in his presence as well as in the presence of a nurse. There were no relatives present. She was giving her statement intermittently. He has denied the suggestion of he creating statement at Ex.P7 at the instance of the police. 23. PW.16 -H.R.Chandra Kumar is the Additional Tahsildar who has spoken about he having received a requisition from Ponnampet Police Station on 02.12.2015 at about 1.30 p.m. to record the dying declaration of the victim- Jayamala, and accordingly he visited K.R.Hospital. He has stated that at 6.30 p.m. he had requested the duty doctor Dr.Srivatsa K.Merta to give certificate/declaration with regard to the medical condition of Jayamala as per Ex.P14. He has stated that said Dr.Srivatsa had given certificate that Jayamala - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 was in a fit condition to speak by endorsing on Ex.P14. That he along with said Dr.Srivatsa went near Jayamala and sent all her relatives outside. He has spoken about he enquiring injured Jayamala regarding her name, name of her husband, her age and her occupation. He has spoken about he enquiring if she was conscious and able to talk, to which she had answered in affirmative. That on a question as to who is responsible for her burn injuries, she had stated that it was her husband and she had given his name and address. He has also stated that she was not able to open her eyes. He has also spoken about she having married to appellant/accused since 10 years and he being addicted to alcohol and quarrelling with her and she having quarrelled on the date of incident and he throttling her neck and pouring kerosene on her setting her ablaze. That she has also spoken about she having been brought to Mysuru Hospital for treatment. That she having requested to take action in accordance with law against her husband. The said witness has stated that he himself had recorded the statement of the victim. That he had read over the said statement to her and she had confirmed the correctness of the same. But since both of her hands were covered with bandage, he had taken the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 impression of great toe of her left foot. That he has recorded the said statement in the presence of Dr.Srivatsa. The statement so recorded is marked at Ex.P15 and his signature is identified as Ex.P15(a) and the signature of the doctor is marked as Ex.P15(d). That he has sent the said statement to Ponnampet Police Station with a covering letter which is marked as Ex.P16. In the cross examination he states that when he went to burns ward there were no police present. He was not informed by PW14-K.S.Subramani that he had recorded the statement of Jayamala earlier. That when he went to the ward there were 2 to 3 relatives of Jayamala, but he did not remember specifically. That he has not verified the hospital case sheet of injured Jayamala. That he has not enquired with the relatives of Jayamala whether she was educated and which was the language she knew. He has also not enquired as to her mother tongue and whether she knew Kannada language. That he has not affixed his signature to any of the registers in the hospital. That when he went to burns ward, Jayamala was under treatment. That she was given drips but he did not remember - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 to which hand the drips was given. He did not notice if Jayamala was under blood transfusion. When he went to take statement the doctors were not giving any treatment. There were other patients in the said ward along with the nurses. Jayamala did not open her eyes when he went, as her eyes were burnt. But however, he had introduced himself that he was Additional Tahsildar of Mysuru. He did not remember the position in which Jayamala was sleeping. That she had suffered burn on her ears as well. He has stated that while recording the statement of Jayamala, the doctors did not examine her as to whether she was in a fit condition to give statement. That the doctors did not check her blood pressure or pulse rate while statement was being recorded. That he has not recorded any video or audio while taking the statement. That he has not taken the toe print impression on all the pages of Ex.P15. That he is not aware whether Jayamala did not know any language other than Jenukuruba language. Analysis: 24. Before adverting to the acceptability of the aforesaid statement and dying declaration at Ex.P7 and Ex.P15 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 respectively, it is necessary at first to refer to Ex.P20, P21, P22 which are the admission records, follow up case sheet of victim maintained in K.R.Hospital, Mysuru. Perusal of admission record reveal that injured-Jayamala was brought to the hospital on 01.12.2015 at 11.30 p.m. and she has given information by herself. The said document reads as under: Patient was brought with alleged history of accidental burn all over the body catching fire from kerosene stove at her home, Kumbarakatte, Nittur Post, Malluru Village, Virajpet Tq, Kodagu District on 01.12.2015 at 7.30 p.m. Patient was taken to Kumbarakatte, Government hospital from where they referred to K.R. Hospital for further treatment. No history of suicidal intent No history of homicidal intent No history of any psychiatric disorder No history of injury/head injury No history of any form of abuse Past history : No history of DM/TB/IHD/B.A/ epilepsy No history of major surgeries in the past. Personal history : diet -mixed appetite -good sleep-undisturbed bowel and bladder normal in size. 25. The aforesaid documentary evidence at Ex.P21 which has come into existence at an undisputed point in time i.e., at 11.30 p.m. on 01.12.2015 indicate that victim-Jayamala was - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 conscious and had herself given information about the burn injuries suffered by her due to accidental fire. Till this hour there is no evidence of any nature whatsoever to indicate appellant/accused being responsible for the burn injuries suffered by the victim-Jayamala. 26. As noted above PW.14 -Subramani K.S., who was the investigation officer during the relevant period has deposed that he recorded the statement of victim-Jayamala as contained in Ex.P7 on 02.12.2015 between 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. and has also identified the left thumb impression of Jayamala as per Ex.P7(a). According to said witness he had recorded the said statement in the presence of PW.19-Dr.Vijayakumar who had certified about the fitness of said Jayamala to give the statement. 27. Relevant here to refer to the statement of victim which was recorded by PW.14 as per Ex.P7, which is extracted for immediate perusal: "ºÉýPÉ: dAiÀĪÀiÁ® UÀAqÀ PÀjAiÀÄ ¥ÁæAiÀÄ 29 ªÀµÀð eÉãÀÄPÀÄgÀħ d£ÁAUÀ PÀÆ°PÉ®¸À, ªÁ¸À PÀÄA¨ÁgÀ PÀmÉÖ ºÁr ªÀÄ®ÆègÀÄ ¨Á¼Àw «gÁd¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ : 02.12.2015 - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÀjAiÀÄ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, PÀÆ°PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ fë¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÉãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀjAiÀÄgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀÄPÀ̽gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀAqÀ PÀjAiÀÄ E§âgÀÄ ¹PÀÌ ¹PÀÌ PÀqÉUÀ¼À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¤£Éß ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 01.12.2015 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÀjAiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆ° PÉ®¸À ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 4.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ°è®è. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÁUÉÎ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 6.00 UÀAmÉUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ UÀAqÀ PÀjAiÀĤUÉ DvÀ£ÀÄ ¥Àæw¤vÀå ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉ wgÀÄUÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è §Ä¢Þ ªÀiÁvÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DUÀ PÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉüÀ®Ä JAzÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ gÁwæ 7.30 UÀAmÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CqÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÁUÉÎ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£Àß PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ »ZÀÄQ »rzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ eÁUÀPÉÌ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ PÁå£À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ, £À£Àß ªÉÄÊ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀzÉ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉý ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ¢Ã¥À¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉAQ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ zsÀj¹zÀÝ £ÉÊnUÉ ¨ÉAQ ºÀwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÁzÀzÀ ºÀwÛgÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ UÁAiÀiÁªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉƨÉâ ºÁPÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß PÉý £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ £À£Àß CtÚ C¥ÀàtÚ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä CPÀ̪ÀÄägÀªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ Nr§AzÀÄ ¤ÃgÀÄ ºÁQ £À£Àß ªÉÄÊ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀwÛPÉÆArzÀÝ ¨ÉAQ £ÀA¢¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß CtÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà MAzÀÄ DmÉÆÃzÀ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß aQvÉì §UÉÎ UÉÆÃtÂPÉÆ¥Àà®Ä ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉ vÀA¢zÀÄÝ C°è ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉaÑ£À aQvÉì §UÉÎ ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À PÉ.Jgï. D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ vÀAzÀÄ zÁR®Ä¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅzÁVzÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÊ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ ¨ÉAQ PÉÆlÄÖ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ®ÄèªÀ, GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¨ÉAQ ºÀaÑzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÀjAiÀÄ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁV ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À PÉ. Dgï D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄlÖ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À aQvÁÛ «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è M¼ÀgÉÆÃVAiÀiÁV zÁR¯ÁV PÉÆlÖ ºÉýPÉ". 28. Ex.D1 is copy of very same statement which is marked through PW.19-Dr.Vijay Kumar during cross examination. Juxtaposition of the aforesaid two documents namely Ex.P7 and Ex.D1 would indicate that Ex.P7 bears the signature and endorsement given by PW.19 -Dr.Vijayakumar, - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 the same is absent in Ex.D1. There is also writing on Ex.D1 - "qÁPÀÖgï eÉÆvÉ EgÀ°®è". There is no explanation from the prosecution as to how these two documents have come into existence under two contrast circumstances. 29. Relevant portion of dying declaration- Ex.P14 recorded by PW.16 is extracted hereunder: "£Á£ÀÄ FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¨Á¼Àw ºÉÆç½ PÀÄA¨ÁgÀ PÀmÉÖ ªÁ¹ PÀjAiÀÄ JA§ÄªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉãÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ «¥ÀjÃvÀ PÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ ZÀl«vÀÄÛ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è CªÀ¤UÉ JµÉÖà §Ä¢Ý ºÉýzÀgÀÄ PÉüÀÄwÛgÀ°®è. ¤£Éß gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.00 UÀAmÉUÉ £À£ÀUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÀÆ F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è dUÀ¼ÀªÁAiÀÄÄÛ. £À£Àß PÀvÀÄÛ »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÆAzÁQ ©qÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ PÀÆUÁrzÀ £À£Àß vÀ¯ÉUÉ PÉʬÄAzÀ UÀÄ¢ÝzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ PÁå£ï£À°èzÀÝ ¹ÃªÉÄÃJuÉÚAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ GjAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ ¹ÃªÉÄÃJuÉÚ ¢Ã¥À¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉAQ ElÖ. £Á£ÀÄ eÉÆÃgÁV QgÀÄaPÉÆAqÁUÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¨ÉAQAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀA¢¹zÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß CtÚ C¥ÀàtÚ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À vÀAzÀÄ aQvÉìUÉ ¸ÉÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ F jÃw ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄPÀ̽gÀĪÀÅ¢®è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå ²PÉë PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ¤ÃrzÀ ºÉýPÉ N¢¹ PÉý ¸Àj EzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß JqÀUÁ°£À ºÉ§ânÖ£À UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ºÁQgÀÄvÉãÉ". 30. From a comparative reading of aforesaid evidence of witnesses and the contents of documents at Ex.P7, Ex.P15 and Ex.P21 following contradictions emerge: (a) PWs.1 to 5 are the persons who were present while victim-Jayamala was on flames and these are the persons, who doused the fire, changed her dress and carried her to Gonikoppal hospital and thereafter - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 to K R. Hospital and got her admitted and were with her till her demise. They have not spoken about victim informing them about appellant/accused being responsible. It was but natural for victim-Jayamala to have disclosed the name and reason of the person who was the cause for her suffering at the very initial stage, that is, before PW.14 purportedly recorded the statement in the presence of PW.19, between 11.30 a.m. and 13.30 p.m. on 02.12.2015. (b) All the witnesses have confirmed the presence of appellant/accused at the scene of offence and he himself suffering burn injuries. None of them even doubted about he being the person responsible for her burn injuries. (c) It is only after recording of the statement of the victim by PW.14 theory of alleged involvement of appellant/accused has surfaced. (d) Contradiction with regard to burn injuries sustained by victim-Jayamala and ability to speak are apparent in the evidence of PWs.14, 16 and 19. Even if it is to be accepted that the victim was in a fit state of mental condition to speak, Ex.P19 to 24 the admission records and the follow-up case sheet maintained in the K.R.Hospital would reveal the victim herself had informed that she had suffered accidental burn injuries from the kerosene stove. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 (e) Mother of victim Jayamala -PW.3 has not spoken about she being present while recording the statement as per Ex.P7. However, PW.14 in his deposition has stated that it was PW.3 the mother of the victim had shown him the injuries sustained by the victim and that she was also present while he recorded statement at Ex.P7. PW.14 has stated that it took two hours for recording the statement. (f) PW.19 doctor has stated that victim was in ICU with her lips, mouth and ear completely burnt and it took one hour to record statement at Ex.P7. He has stated that said statement was recorded in ICU burn ward while himself, PW.14 and two nurses were present and no relatives of the victims were present. (g) Ex.P7- statement of the victim was recorded on 02.12.2015 between 1.30 pm and 3.30 pm and Ex.P15-dying declaration was recorded on the very same day between 6.35 p.m. and 7.05 p.m. While according to the prosecution victim-Jayamala had affixed her left thumb impression on Ex.P7, contrary to the same, according to PW.16 he obtained impression of great toe of left foot of the victim on her dying declaration at Ex.P15 inasmuch as her both hands were burnt and covered with bandage. That - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 apart there is inherent contradiction between the deposition of PW.14 and PW.16. (h) Contents of Ex.P40 which is a requisition sent by PW.14 -K.S.Subramani, ASI to the Taluk Magistrate, Mysuru District indicate that victim-Jayamala being upset with her husband-appellant/accused had poured kerosene and had set herself ablaze on 01.12.2015 and was admitted in the K.R.Hospital, Burn Injuries Ward. Endorsement on the said document indicates that the said requisition has been received by PW.16 -Additional Tahsildar at 1.30 p.m. on 02.12.2015. As per the deposition of PW.14 himself this document appears to have come into existence after PW.14 recording statement of the victim at Ex.P7 between 11.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. 31. In the light of the deposition of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5 of victim not informing them about accused being the reason for her burn injuries and PW.4-Appanna stating that victim- Jayamala informing about she suffering burn injuries due to accidental fall of lamp on her and also in the light of contents of Ex.P21 and Ex.P40, the version of PW.14 and PW.19 in they recording the statement as per Ex.P7 and the version of PW.16 - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 -Additional Tahsildar, Mysuru recording dying declaration at Ex.P15 does not evince credibility. 32. 32. The Apex Court in the case of Purshottam Chopra and anr Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 11 SCC 489 has laid down the following principles pertaining to the cases concerning acceptability or admissibility of dying declaration. "21. For what has been noticed hereinabove, some of the principles relating to recording of dying declaration and its admissibility and reliability could be usefully summed up as under: 21.1. A dying declaration could be the sole basis of conviction even without corroboration, if it inspires confidence of the court. 21.2. The court should be satisfied that the declarant was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement; and that it was a voluntary statement, which was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. 21.3. Where a dying declaration is suspicious or is suffering from any infirmity such as want of fit state of mind of the declarant or of like nature, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. 21.4. When the eyewitnesses affirm that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the statement, the medical opinion cannot prevail. 21.5. The law does not provide as to who could record dying declaration nor there is any prescribed format or procedure for the same but the person recording dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making the statement. 21.6. Although presence of a Magistrate is not absolutely necessary for recording of a dying declaration but to ensure authenticity and credibility, it is expected that a Magistrate be requested to record such dying declaration and/or attestation be obtained from other persons present at the time of recording the dying declaration. 21.7. As regards a burns case, the percentage and degree of burns would not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility of dying - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 declaration; and the decisive factor would be the quality of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to make the statement. 21.8. If after careful scrutiny, the court finds the statement placed as dying declaration to be voluntary and also finds it coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in recording conviction on its basis even without corroboration. 33. Analysis of the above noted material evidence and contradictions, sole reliance on the dying declaration under the facts of the present case is not safe. Merely because the doctor have certified regarding victim being capable of speaking would not be sufficient to accept the statement or the dying declaration particularly, if from the material made available by the prosecution, its version appears to be unusual and contrary to natural course of events. The requirement of law being the Court trying the matter should satisfy itself that such a statement/declaration was natural, true and beyond reasonable doubt and the same not being the product of tutoring or prompting. Regarding burn injuries suffered by appellant/accused: 34. Another important aspect of the matter is that appellant/accused had also suffered 40% second degree burn injuries and was admitted for treatment between 2.12.2015 - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 12.30 am to 17.12.2015 4.30 pm. as seen at Ex.P43. Prosecution is completely silent on this aspect of the matter. Non explanation by the prosecution would lead to drawing up inference about suppression of very genesis of the case. 35. Non-explanation by prosecution regarding injuries suffered by accused has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Babu Ram and others Vs State of Punjab reported in (2008)3 SCC 709 wherein at paragraph 18 it has been held as under: "18. It is a well-settled law that in a murder case, the non- explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: 1. that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; 2. that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; 3. that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. (See Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, SCC p.401, para 12)" 36. The trial Court has lost sight of this aspect of the matter while drawing adverse inference on the appellant/accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 Act. Even otherwise merely because, as reasoned by the trial Court that the appellant/accused did not enter the witness box to offer the explanation regarding his burn injuries under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, no adverse inference can be drawn. It is settled law that the adverse inference can be drawn for non-explanation of the events which are specially within the special knowledge of the accused as required under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act only when the prosecution has established all circumstances completing the chain of events. Conclusion: 37. As held by the Apex court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 at paragraph 153- The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established. 38. In the instant case, since the entire case of the prosecution is based on the statement at Ex.P7 and the dying declaration at Ex.P15 and none of the witnesses having whispered about the cause of the burn injuries and in the light - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 of contradictions noted above in recording of Ex.P7 and Ex.P15, this Court is of considered view same cannot be the sole basis for convicting the appellant/accused. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29/30.01.2018 in S.C.No.45/2016 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu- Madikeri, Sitting at Virajpet, is hereby set aside. (iii) Appellant/accused is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. The order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of the properties is maintained. - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36951-DB CRL.A No. 638 of 2018 Communicate copy of this order to the trial Court and concerned prison forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25