- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200042 OF 2019 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MALLAPPA @ MALLAYYA UPPAL, S/O BASSAPPA UPPAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/AT SRINIVAS CAMP, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TURVIHAL POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER DATED 25.09.2018 IN S.C.NO.111/2016, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT RAICHUR, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 302 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This appeal is filed by the appellant – accused as against the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 26.09.2018 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Raichur, in S.C.No.111/2016 for having found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of 06 months simple imprisonment and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for 01 year and both the sentences shall run concurrently. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 02. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant Amicus-Curiae and the learned Addl. SPP. for the respondent – State. 03. The appellant was the accused and the respondent was the prosecution before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties retained for convenience. 04. The Turvihal police have filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504 and 302 of IPC, based upon the complaint – Ex.P.1 filed by the brother of the deceased on 10.05.2016. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused married the deceased – Smt. Renukamma about 15 years back and having 02 children. In spite of that, he was continuously harassing and assaulting the deceased by addicting with the alcohol. As on the date of incident, the deceased was also eight months pregnant. It is further alleged that on 10.05.2016, the accused said to be picked up quarrel with the deceased in the house by demanding money for drinking alcohol and he said to be took out the an axe – M.O.I and assaulted the deceased on her neck - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 and face, due to which she has sustained injuries and the accused was ran-away from the spot, where PW.2 – Yankappa the brother of the accused intimated to the PW.1 and they had shifted the injured to the Turvihal PHC. Later, she was shifted to Government Hospital, at Sindhanur, where the deceased was succumbed to the injuries and the child was delivered by the doctor, however the child was also died. The police have registered the FIR and investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate. 05. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance for the above said offences and committed the matter to the Court of Sessions for trial. 06. The Trial Court secured the presence of the accused who was in judicial custody from 14.06.2016. He was represented by his counsel. The Trial Court framed the charges of the alleged offences. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was called upon to adduce the evidence. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 07. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses as per PW.1 to PW.19 and got marked 25 documents as per Exs.P.1 to 25 and 05 material objections as per M.O.1 to 5. After closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and when the incriminating evidence read-over to him, the case of the accused was one of the total denial, but he has not enter into any defence evidence. 08. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court found the accused as guilty, convicted and sentenced as stated above. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. 09. This appeal is filed through High Court Legal Services Authority, after change of the advocate, presently this Court appointed Sri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, as Amicus-Curiae. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 10. The learned Amicus-Curiae has contended that the judgment of the Trial Court is not proper. The Trial Court erred in convicting the accused. The Trial Court accepted the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 as eyewitnesses, whereas in fact they are not the eyewitnesses. They have came to the place of occurrence only after the incident. They were admitted in the cross-examination that they have not seen while the accused was actually assaulting the deceased with an axe. This aspect was not appreciated by the Trial Court. It is further contended that most of the witnesses especially PWs.2, 3 and 4 belongs to the family of the accused i.e., brother of the accused and sister-in- laws of the accused. There was a partition dispute between the accused and his brothers’ family. Due to which, they have been falsely implicated, that was also elicited in the cross-examination. The same was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. It is further contended that by excluding the evidence of those witnesses, the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidences where none of the circumstance proved by the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. All the witnesses are interested witnesses. The PW.1 was only hearsay witness. The axe was also seized from the house and not at the instance of the accused. After arrest of the accused, no bloodstain clothes of the accused were seized by the police. Such being the case, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC does not arises. It is also contended that there is no continuous harassment by the accused to prove the provision of Section 498(A) of IPC. The accused and the deceased were residing together for 15 years and having 02 grown children. The said children were not cited as witness by the investigating officer. Such being the case, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) or 302 of IPC, does not arise. 11. It is alternatively argued that looking to the evidence of the witnesses, they have heard the noise of the deceased, at that time the accused said to be assaulted, but they have not seen the actual assault. The offence committed during the sudden provocation and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 under heat of passion, a quarrel between the husband and wife and he took up the axe, which was lying in the house. There is no intention or premeditation to commit the murder. Such being the case, the finding of guilt for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC does not arises. At most, the offence committed by the accused falls under the exception to the Section 300 of IPC, which falls under either 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC. Therefore, prayed for reducing the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He also contended that the accused is in judicial custody for almost more than 09 years from 14.06.2016. 12. The learned Amicus-Curiae for the appellant in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Nanak Ram s/o Bhagu Ram, B/C Bawri vs the State of Rajasthan, in Criminal Appeal No.11/2018 D.D. 10.01.2023. Therefore, prayed for giving set-off and release the accused. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 13. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP. supported the judgment of conviction and findings of the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC. It is further contended that PWs.2 to 4 are the eyewitnesses who were just working in the field adjacent to the house and tent of the accused and were also resides in the same land. The quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. After hearing the quarrel, they went to the house. At that time the accused was committed the murder and was standing near the deceased with an axe. After seeing them, he has thrown the weapon and run-away from the spot. It clearly goes to show that presence of the accused on the spot which applies Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is just relevant to say of the fact that the accused was present and ran-away from the place of occurrence. When looking to the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 clearly reveal the presence of accused who was committed the murder. It is further contended that even otherwise the accused and the deceased were residing in the house and they were present in the house as per the evidence of PWs.2 to 4. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 Such being the case, if death was caused to the wife, it is a exclusively personal knowledge of the accused, he has to explain what happened to his wife as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, it is contended that the accused was committed the murder. As per the evidence of prosecution, the accused was continuously harassed the deceased and finally has committed the murder. It is also contended that if at all the accused having any sudden provocation, he could have assaulted with the hand slapping her or could have took a stick or any other material for assaulting her, but he has taking the very axe weapon and assaulting on the neck and on the face of the deceased itself goes to show that he has targeted the vital part of the deceased with the intention to commit the murder of the wife. Such being case, it is contented that the Trial Court rightly given the findings on appreciating the evidence on record based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and other evidences and rightly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, which call for no interference. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 14. Having heard the arguments and perused records, the points that would arise for our consideration as under:- i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused harassed mentally and physically to his wife and on 10.05.2016 assaulted her at 02.00 p.m., thereby he guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC.? ii) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10.05.2016 at 2.00 p.m. the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased with a intention to kill her took up the axe and assaulted on her chin, cheek and neck with intention to cause death, due to which she was succumbed to the injuries in the hospital thereby he has convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.? iii) Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 302 of IPC, call for any interference.? - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 15. Before appreciating the evidence of the witnesses on record, it is worth to mention the evidences adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court which are as under:- 16. We have already stated above that the prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses. 17. PW.1 – Maruti who is the complainant and brother of the deceased who filed the complaint as per Ex.P.1, has deposed before the Court that his sister – Smt. Renukamma was married to the accused at about 15 years back and lived happily for 07 to 08 years. Thereafter, the accused used to come to the home in drunken status everyday and used to beat his sister. The deceased always informing about the harassment and ill-treatment to her family. He has advised the accused and also advised the deceased to tolerate for better future of the children, but the accused did not stop the torture, due to which his sister was also requested to take her back. Therefore, the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 deceased was brought to his house for 02 years. Thereafter, the accused requested and he has confessed his mistake. Later he took back his sister to his house. Again the accused started torturing by demanding money for his bad habits. He further deposes that on 10.05.2016 at about 3.30 p.m. he has received the phone call from the very brother of the accused PW.2 - Yankappa that the accused beaten her sister with an axe and she was taken to the Sindahnur Hospital. Therefore, he himself along with the CW.7 came to the Hospital at 04.45 p.m. and enquired with the PW.2 and came to know that the doctors were trying to save the life and they got the delivery of the child from womb, but mother was died. Due to that the child was also died. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint before the police. The police after conducting the postmortem hand-over the dead body to the family of the deceased and they have made the rituals. The police have came to the hospital on 11.05.2016. He has shown the spot of incident and the police have seized the axe, which was marked at M.O.1 and Tadpall at M.O.2. The - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 police have prepared the panchanama as per Ex.P.6. According to his evidence, he was the hearsay witness in respect of the assaulting the deceased by the accused on 10.05.2016. However, he spoken about the harassment made by the accused continuously for 2-3 years. Therefore, the deceased was taken to his house and kept in his house. Later the accused by confessing his mistake with undertaking, took back the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was stayed with the accused at the time of incident. 18. PW-2 - Yankappa, who is the own brother of the accused was deposed that the marriage of the deceased with accused was held about 15 years back. He was also speaks that they have led happy married life for 5-6 years. Thereafter, there was difference of opinion between the husband and wife and quarrel between them. Therefore, the deceased went to her parents’ house and stayed there for 02 years. Thereafter, the accused brought her back to - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 his house. He further deposed that about one year and nine months before the incident he had been to the house of his brother - Iranna about 02.00 p.m. and heard that the deceased and the accused were quarreling in their house. The PW-3 and PW-4 were went there and they also saw the incident. Thereafter, he went to the house of the deceased and saw the injured. The accused was escaped and the deceased sustained axe injuries and she was alive, she has sustained injuries on her throat and not able to talk. She has shifted to Turvihal Hospital. Thereafter, she was shifted to Sindhnur Hospital, where he was also intimated to the PW.1. Later a child was also delivered, but both child and the mother were died. He also identified the MO-1 (Axe) used by the accused. 19. As per his evidence, according to him PWs.3 and 4 went to the house of the accused and saw the incident and later he went to the house of the accused. In the cross-examination it is admitted that he has not seen while accused assaulting the deceased. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 20. PW.3 – Smt. Sharanamma who is the sister of the accused and wife of the one of the brother – Iranna. According to her evidence, she also speaks that marriage of the deceased and the accused was held about 13 years back and having 02 children. The accused started quarreling with his wife with a drunken mood. Their houses are situated on the same land. The wife of the accused went to her parents’ house, due to the quarrel. Later the accused took her back and she was pregnant for 08 months. She further deposes that when herself and PW.4 cleaning the land in which their houses are also situated, they heard the screaming sound of the deceased. They rushed to the house and saw that the accused beaten her with axe near cheek and neck, herself and PW.2 and 4 also seen the incident that the deceased sustained injuries over the cheek and neck and accused escaped from the spot. She further deposes that the diseased was taken to the Turvihal Hospital and information given to the PW.1 by phone. The doctor advised to take her to Sindhnur Hospital. Accordingly, they - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 taken her to Sindhnur Hospital, where she delivered a child, later a child and deceased were dead. She also stated that the police enquired her as well as her husband. During the cross-examination, she has stated that she has not seen the accused while beating the deceased with an axe. However, she voluntarily says that when they went to the house of the accused, after hearing the screaming sound, the accused came out and saw the axe lying there. After screaming the noise of the deceased, they went to the house. At that time, the accused came out and ran- away when they went to the house and saw that the deceased was sustained injuries and axe was lying near the deceased. 21. The PW.4 – Smt. Arunamma another sister-in- law of the accused and wife of the brother of the accused also deposes that the marriage of the accused with the deceased was held about 13 years ago and having 02 children. The accused addicted to alcohol, quarreling with - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 the wife, beating his wife and she went to her parents’ house and later accused brought her back to his house. The houses of the PWs.2 and 3 are situated near the land of the deceased. She further deposes that at about 2:00 p.m. on the date of incident, she heard the quarrel and screaming from the house of the accused. Hence, she herself and PW.2 went to the house and saw that the accused beaten his wife over the cheek and neck with an axe and the accused went away. Then they have shifted the deceased to the Turvihal Hospital. Then later shifted to Sindhnur Hospital and the deceased delivered the child. But injured and her child also died. In the cross- examination once again this witness also says that she has personal witnessed to the accused, when he was beating his wife with an axe and he was holding axe by both hands. However, the suggestion was made to her, but she was not personally seen the accused while he was beating, but she has denied the same. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 22. PW.5 - Gangadhar who is the relative of the deceased who accompanied PW.1 to the hospital, after PW.1 received the information from PW.2 who has also given evidence that he went to the hospital. He also says that the deceased sustaining injury, later she was succumbed to the injuries and he is only a hearsay witness who accompanied with PW.1 – complainant to the hospital. 23. PW.6 - Devanna who is the elder brother of the deceased and a panch witness to the spot panchanama – Ex.P.6, where after registering the FIR, the police went to the house of the accused. He summoned by the police on 10.05.2016 at 3:30 p.m. The PW.2 told that the accused beaten his wife, she was taken to the Sindhnur Hospital. He also speaks that he also saw the dead body. His sister was sustained injuries and PW.2 told that the accused beaten the deceased with an axe and due to failure to pay the money for alcohol. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 24. PW.7 - Mariyappa who is a inquest panch witness to the Ex.P.9 – inquest panchanama. The panchanama on the dead body of the deceased and conduct of inquest panchnama is not in dispute. He also speaks about the injury sustained on the dead body. The photographs were taken by the police as per Exs.P.2 and 3. He has identifies the Ex.P.9 – inquest panchanama. Subsequently, the police also prepared spot panchnama in the house of the accused as per Ex.P.10 and photos also taken in the house as per Exs.P.11 to 13. 25. PW.8 - Ibrahimsab who is the inquest panch witness to the inquest panchnama. He speaks that he has seen the dead body and identify Ex.P.9 - inquest panchnama and the photos. The death of the deceased due to the injury and dead body in the hospital are all not in dispute. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 26. PW 9 - Devappa who is the spot panch witness, as per his evidence about 01 year 09 months back, the police called to the land and they verified the place, they seized the axe and plastic tadpal. At that time PW.13 was also with him. The police prepared the panchnama and he identifies spot panchnama as per Ex.P.6. He further deposes that the police also prepared the spot panchanama by seizing the cloths i.e., cloth of the deceased, blouse saree and shirt as per M.Os.3 to 5. He also identifies M.O.1 – Axe and M.O.2 – Tadpal. 27. PW.10 - Irappa who is also a panch witness with regard to seizer of the M.Os.3 to 5 and spot panchnama as per Ex.P.6. 28. The learned counsel for the accused not seriously disputed the evidence of the PW.9 and PW.10 in respect of seizer of M.O.1 from the house and also seizer of the cloths of the deceased and prepared the spot panchanama after seizing the M.O.1 to 5. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 29. PW.11 – Chatrappa, another spot panch witness to another spot panchanama prepared by the police as per Ex.P.10. He also deposes that the police called him to the house of the accused, where the spot was shown by the accused as per Ex.P.10. The police obtained the photos as per Exs.P.11 to 13. The accused also left to Maski road, where he said to be took bath after committing the offence. The police took the photographs as per Exs.P.11 to 13 and he has identifies Ex.P.10 – another spot panchanama drawn on the spot, where the accused said to be washing his cloths and took bath. 30. PW.12 – Yesu, the police constable who carry out the dead body to the postmortem examination. After the postmortem examination, he has handed over the same to the relatives of the deceased and took the clothes of the deceased as per M.Os.3 to 5 and handover the investigation officer. There is nothing elicited in his evidence to disbelieve his evidence. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 31. PW.13 – Rajkumar - Head Constable, who carried the complaint as well as FIR. According to him, he received the MLC from Turvihal Hospital. He went and met the doctors then patient was taken to the higher treatment at Sindhanur. He went to Sindhnur Hospital and came to know that the deceased was died. Thereafter, he took the PW.1 – Maruti, the brother of the deceased to lodge the complaint. Accordingly, he accompanied PW.1 to the police station where PW.1 said to be given complaint as per Ex.P.1. He took PW.1 and then he forwarded the complaint to the Sindhanur police station. 32. PW.14 – Gopal, another police constable who deposes that on 10.5.2016 the PW.13 took him to the hospital by receiving the MLC. Thereafter, they went to the Sindhnur Hospital, where they came to know that the injured was dead. Thereafter, PW.13 handed-over the complaint to him at 06.00 p.m. and he carried to the SHO and produced the same to the police station to CW.24 at 06:30 p.m. Subsequently, as per the direction on - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 20.05.2016 he said to be tried to arrest the accused, but he was not found. Later on 14.06.2016 by getting credible information, they apprehended the accused near SDMT College, Maski road Sindhnur at 12:30 p.m. and produced before the CW.22 at 01:15 p.m. He also identified the accused. Accordingly, he accompanied the PW.13 to the hospital and took the complaint of PW.1 before the police station and later they arrested the accused on 14.06.2016. 33. PW.15 - Ramesh the investigation officer who has arrested the accused and has filed the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation. 34. PW.16- Doctor Nagaraj who has got delivered the child from the womb of the deceased in the Shindnur hospital and at 04.40 p.m. the deceased said to be died. After getting the consent of the relatives of the patient, he has conducted permiatorm scissorion and got extracted the child and later the child was also died at 04.50 p.m. He has given the treatment details as per Ex.P.20. Later - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 he has received the request from the police. He has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body. He found the various injuries and give an opinion and post examination report as per Ex.P.19. He also examined the axe and given an opinion as per Ex.P.18 and he has stated that weapon M.O.1 was used to assault the deceased. 35. PW.17 - Doctor Ramesh, Medical Officer at Turvihal Hospital. According to his evidence, the deceased was first brought to the hospital on 10.05.2016 at 02.30 p.m. then he has verified the injuries where the deceased is said to be having child in the womb, then he has referred the injured to the Sindhnur Hospital. He has seen the request of the police as per Ex.P.21. 36. PW.18 - Rajendra Prasad the Junior Engineer, PWD, Manvi, who has been summoned by the Court by acting under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. where he has prepared the spot sketch map as per Ex.P.23. The spot sketch map of place of occurrence where the accused and the deceased were live together. There is no serious dispute with regard to accused was not stayed in the house. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 37. PW-19/Basavaraj, Head Constable, in his evidence deposed that on 10.05.2016, PW-14 came to the hospital and brought the complaint of PW-1. He received the complaint, registered an FIR in Crime No. 73/2016. He has identified complaint as per Ex.P-1 and FIR as per Ex. P-25. He forwarded the FIR to the Court and handed over the investigation to PW-15, the Circle Inspector of Police. 38. Upon careful reading of the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution established that the death of Renukamma, the deceased, was a homicidal death due to injuries sustained. In support of this contention, the evidence of Ex. P-18 and Ex. P-19, show that there were injuries on the face and neck of the deceased, which caused her death. 39. The evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 also state that they saw the deceased with visible injuries and shifted her to Government hospital, Turvihal. PW-17, a doctor, examined Renukamma, noted injuries and referred her to Sindhanur Hospital for advanced treatment. The - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 injuries, as detailed in Ex. P-19 included external injuries on the head, face and neck, which caused her death. The doctor’s opinion confirms that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage, secondary to multiple injuries sustained by her. 40. The fact that the deceased died due to injuries is not seriously disputed by the accused. The prosecution, through the evidence of PW-16 and PW-17, supported by Ex. P-19 and Ex. P-18, established that the death resulted from the injuries caused by an axe, successfully proving that Renukamm’s death was homicidal. 41. Regarding whether there was ill-treatment by the accused during the lifetime of the deceased, as per the evidence of PW-1, the brother of the deceased and PW-5, another brother, given evidence that the marriage between the accused and the deceased occurred about 15 years ago. They lived happily for 6-7 years, but thereafter, the accused began quarrelling with the deceased, demanding money for alcohol due to his addiction. The - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 deceased informed PW-1 of this harassment due to non tolerance, leading her to stay at her parents’ house for two years. The accused later came to the house of PW-1, confessed his mistakes, promised not to repeat them and took her back to his matrimonial home, located on land belonging to PW-2 and himself. 42. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 also corroborates the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, where PW-2 is the brother of the accused and PW-3 and PW-4 are sisters-in-laws of the accused. They deposed that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased, leading to a two-year separation. After reconciliation, they resided together, but continuous quarrels between them, with the accused assaulting the deceased and demanding money for drinking alcohol. 43. Though, the prosecution has contended that the Investigating officer has not chosen to examine of the children of deceased and the accused, but, the evidence of PW-1 and 5, who are the brothers of the deceased and - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 PW-2 to PW-4, close relatives of the accused, also confirms continuous harassment by the accused prior to the incident and even at the time of incident. This establishes that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty, successfully proving the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, answered the point No.1. 44. Regarding whether the accused committed the killing of the deceased, PW-2 to PW-4 are material witnesses. PW-1, is only a hearsay witness, who learned about the incident through PW-2, the accused’s brother. PW-2 Yankappa deposed in his examination-in-chief that a quarrel occurred in the accused’s house around 2:00 PM. PW-3 and PW-4, went to their and saw the injured deceased and stated that the accused had escaped. Thereafter, PW-2 went to the house of the accused and saw the deceased lying on the floor and the accused escaping. PW-2 clarified in his examination in chief that PW-3 and PW-4 reached the house first, saw the incident - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 and he arrived later, observing the accused leaving the place. Therefore, it is revealed in the evidence that he went to the spot only after completion of the incident and when the accused was leaving the spot/home. 45. PW-3/Sharanamma, a sister-in-law of the accused, deposed in her evidence that she heard screaming of Renukamma from the accused’s house, located on their family land. She and PW-4 rushed to the house and saw the accused beating the deceased with an axe near her chin. PW-4 and 2 also witnessed the incident. In cross-examination, PW-3 admitted as follows - “It is true that I have not seen the accused beating the deceased with an axe and voluntaries, when they went near the house of the accused after hearing the screaming of deceased. The accused came out and then, they went to the house and saw that the deceased was lying with injuries”. So, as per her evidence also she did not see the accused beating the deceased, but saw him leaving the house after hearing screams, with the deceased lying - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 injured. Therefore, even as per her evidence she did not see the accused beating the deceased, but, they rushed to the house only after hearing the screaming sound and when the accused was escaping and the deceased was lying on the floor with injuries. 46. PW-4/Arunamma, another sister-in-law of the accused, deposed that around 2:00 PM, she, PW-2, and PW-3 heard screams from the accused’s house. She and PW-3 went to the house and saw the accused had beaten the deceased on the neck and cheek with an axe and he escaped. In cross-examination, PW-4 claimed she personally witnessed the assault, but denied suggestions that she did not see the accused while assaulting the deceased, though she admitted that the accused was holding the axe when they arrived. 47. The learned counsel for the accused contended that PW-2 and PW-3, did not witness the actual assault, as they arrived the accused had already assaulted the deceased and was leaving the house. PW-4 also went to - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 the house along with PW-2 and 3. Such being the case, she could not have seen the accused while assaulting the deceased, as they reached the place after the completion of assault by the accused. Though, this witness has not stated in the examination in chief that she has actually seen the accused beating his wife, but stated that when they went to the house, the accused had already beaten his wife and this part of the examination in chief corroborates with the PW-2 and PW-3’s cross-examination, where they have admitted that they heard screaming sound and they went there and accused had already completed the assaulted and saw the accused coming out. Therefore, PW-4 could not have seen the accused while assaulting the deceased with the axe, as she also came to the place of incident along with PW-2 and 3. 48. The learned Addl. SPP has contended that the accused and deceased resided in the same house and PW- 2 to PW-4 heard screams during a quarrel. This part of evidence is not seriously disputed by the accused in the - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 cross examination. The accused and the deceased used to reside in a tin house, which is situated on family land, where PW-2 to PW-4 rushed immediately after hearing screams, finding the deceased with brutal neck injuries and an axe nearby, but the accused escaped. Therefore, they went to the place of incident, immediately after occurrence of the incident and they saw the deceased lying injured on the floor with brutal injuries with an axe lying nearby and the accused escaping. Therefore, learned Addl. SPP has rightly contended that even though PW-2 to 4 have not actually seen the accused assaulting the deceased, but, they have heard the noise of quarrel between the husband and wife and screaming of the deceased, due to the assault on the neck. They rushed to the house, by that time the accused had completed the assault and was coming out of the house. 49. In this regard, it is worth to mention provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 “6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.” 50. A perusal of the Section 6 of the Evidence Act would go to show that though, PW-2 to PW-4 did not witness the assault, but found the deceased injured, with the accused leaving the house. The fact that they immediately after hearing screams rushed their and there was quarrel between them is relevant. When they rushed to the house the deceased was lying on the floor sustaining brutal injuries, the assaulting weapon was also lying nearby and the accused came out and ran away from the spot. The presence of the accused, the axe and the injuries are relevant to connect to the fact in issue and the accused. 51. PW-14, a police constable, deposed that the accused was arrested near Maski Road on 14.06.2016, 34 days after the incident. The contention of learned counsel - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 for the accused the accused cannot be accepted, because if the accused had intended to save the deceased, he could have taken her to the hospital or remained at the scene, but he escaped from the place of occurrence and was arrested after 34 days on the Maski road. The presence of the accused at the scene with the injured deceased lying full of blood, evidence of PW-2 to 4 and axe, supports the prosecution’s case under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not brought to the evidence in the cross examination that the deceased sustained injuries somewhere else or somebody else could have assaulted her. It is the accused, who assaulted her by quarreling with her. 52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (AIR 2011 SCC 2877), in para 34 has held as under: “34. We shall now deal with Section 6 of the Act, wich reads as under: "6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction - Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. Black's Law Dictionary defines Res Gestae as follows: (Latin: "things done") The events at issue, or other events contemporaneous with them In evidence law, words and statements about the res gestae are usually admissible under a hearsay exception (such as present sense impression or excited utterance). The said evidence thus becomes relevant and admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of the Act.” 53. The Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court also squarely applies here, where the accused was found fleeing after assaulting the deceased. Learned Addl. SPP has also brought to the notice of this Court that the accused and the deceased were staying in the same house and they quarreled even before the incident and also at the time of incident. PW-2 to 4 heard the screaming of the deceased and went to the spot and saw that the deceased was lying on the floor injured and the deceased was escaping. The accused has also failed to explain the injuries of his wife, adverse inference to be drawn against the accused that the accused himself could have - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 committed the offence by assaulting his wife. The learned Addl. SPP also relied upon the definition of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 54. In the evidence, PW-2 to PW-4 have categorically stated that after hearing screams and a quarrel between husband and wife prior to the incident, they went to the house, they saw the accused escape with the deceased was lying injured and an axe nearby. This was communicated to PW-1 and PW-5, the deceased’s brothers. Then, the PW-2 to 4 shifted the injured to Government hospital, Turvihal and then to Government hospital, Sindhanur, where PW-1 and 5 also came. The prosecution succeeded in discharging its initial burden of proving the case under Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, showing that the accused assaulted the deceased during a quarrel with an axe and escaped and failed to explain the injuries, because of the evidence of PW-2 to 4 heard the noise and they went to the house and saw the - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 injured lying the floor injured and they saw the accused coming out of the house. 55. The burden is now shifted to the accused to explain the incident and what happened to his wife. But, he provided no explanation, as to how his wife sustained injuries. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that he alone committed the offence by assaulting the deceased with an axe. Thereby, the prosecution successfully proved that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel even prior to the incident and at the time of incident also. During a quarrel on 10.05.2016 at 2:00 PM, the accused took up an axe (MO-1) and assaulted the deceased’s neck and mandible region, causing grievous injuries leading to her death at Government hospital, Sindhanur at 4:40 PM. 56. Other evidence, seizer of MO-1 and 2, including Ex.P-6 Spot Panchanama and PW-6 to PW-10’s testimony, confirms that the incident occurred in the accused’s house. MO-1 (axe) and MO-2 (Tadpal of the shed, which was used - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 in the house, which was blood stained) were seized by the police, along with MO-3 to MO-5 (deceased’s clothes), under a panchanama, which is undisputed by the accused. 57. Thereby, the prosecution successfully proved that the accused used to harass the deceased, demanding money for drinking alcohol, establishing Section 498(A) of IPC and that on 10.05.2016, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife at about 2:00 PM in that quarrel the accused assaulted the deceased on the face and neck with an axe, causing her death. 58. Regarding the deceased’s pregnancy, PW-16 (Dr. Nagaraj, who delivered the child) has given evidence that the deceased was eight months pregnant. A cesarean delivery was attempted and the child was delivered. The child was alive at the time of delivery and died at 4:50 PM after the mother’s death. Thus, the accused cannot be held liable for the child’s murder, as it was a live birth and the child died after the death of the mother. Therefore, the contention of the learned Addl. SPP that the accused - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 committed the murder of child as well as the mother cannot be accepted. Now, this Court has to see whether the offence committed by the accused falls under Section 302 of IPC or not. 59. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the assault occurred during a sudden quarrel, with no intention to commit murder. During the heat of the moment, the accused took up the axe lying in the house and assaulted the deceased, there was no intention to commit murder, which falls under exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The accused acted in sudden provocation without premeditation, using an axe during the quarrel. He contended that the offence falls under Section 304 Part I of IPC and prayed for reducing the sentence. 60. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP has contended that the weapon used by the accused is an axe and he has chosen the place of assault on the neck, which is a vital part of human body and therefore, there was an intention - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 to commit the murder of the deceased. He contends that the offence falls under Section 302 of IPC and prays for not reducing the sentence. 61. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraj Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006 (11) SCC 444), which was also relied by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan. Paragraph No.29 of the said judgment reads as under: “29. Therefore, the Court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls Under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the Accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 murder punishable Under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable Under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder are treated as murder punishable Under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances; (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the Accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the Accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstance is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention." 62. On perusal of the said judgment, it is seen that the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for an - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 offence, which falls under Section 302 or 304 of IPC or Section 304 Part I/II of IPC. On careful perusal of the said judgment and the facts of the case, it is seen that the evidence of PW-2 to PW-4 shows a they heard the quarrel between the accused and his wife, followed by screams of the deceased. Then, they immediately went to the spot and saw the deceased lying on the floor injured and saw the accused ran away. The incident occurred at 2:00 PM in the house, in the presence of witnesses working nearby, suggesting no premeditation. 63. The accused and deceased were married for 15 years, with two sons, and the deceased was pregnant with a third child. Despite prior disputes, they reconciled, but the accused demanded money for alcohol, leading to the quarrel. But, on the date of incident, PW-2 to 4 heard the screaming of the deceased, immediately went to the spot, where the accused had already assaulted the deceased and went away. - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 64. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that if, the accused had intended to murder his wife, he would have chosen a time when his wife was alone at home, not at 2:00 PM or not in the presence of other witnesses, who were working in the field near the house. Therefore, there was no intention to commit the murder. 65. Admittedly, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife at the house. During the quarrel, the accused took up the axe lying nearby and assaulted his wife. The axe is the assaulting equipment, kept in the house. Thereafter, PW-2 to 4 came to the place. Therefore, from the evidence of PW-2 to 4 and other evidence, it is safe to presume that the assault on the deceased took place due to sudden quarrel between the husband and wife, in the heat of the moment he assaulted on the face, especially on the mandible region and mouth. By which, we can infer that in the fit of anger, the accused might have took out the axe and assaulted the deceased, - 46 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 but no prior intention or preparation for committing the murder. 66. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the sudden quarrel, triggered by the deceased’s refusal to give money, led the accused to act in a fit of anger, using an axe to assault the deceased’s mouth and neck. Later, she was shifted to the hospital at about 2:00 PM, where she succumbed to the injuries at 4:30 PM. The absence of premeditation or prior intent indicates culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling under Section 304 Part I of IPC, not Section 304 Part II. 67. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the offence committed by the accused is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. As per Section 304 Part I of IPC, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. It is also seen from the records that the accused has two sons, who are major and no other person to look after them. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that - 47 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 instead of imposing sentence of life, if a minimum sentence of 10 years is imposed, the same would meet the ends of justice. 68. Hence, we answer point No. 2 partly in the affirmative, in view of the above considerations, the judgment of the Trial Court and the findings for the offences under Section 302 of IPC requires interference. The conviction is modified to Section 304 Part I of IPC. 69. Accordingly, we pass the following order: ORDER i) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, with 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, is hereby confirmed. iii) However, the accused is sentenced to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC, in default of payment of the fine, the - 48 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2436-DB CRL.A No. 200042 of 2019 accused shall undergo one year’s simple imprisonment. iv) Both sentences shall run concurrently. v) The appellant is entitled to set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., having been in custody since 14.06.2016. vi) Registry is directed to send copy of the judgment and TCR to the concerned Trial Court. The assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae Sri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, is placed on record and he is entitled to receive the honorarium of Rs.20,000/- from the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee, Kalaburagi. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KJJ,NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT:SI